Linear Algebra: Positive Matrix

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a positive operator T on a Hilbert space H and its matrix representation A with respect to an orthonormal basis. The task is to show that A is a positive matrix, meaning that for all vectors x in C, the expression x*Ax is non-negative.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the definition of a positive operator and its implications, including the self-adjoint property. Questions arise regarding the relationship between the operator T and its matrix representation A, particularly concerning inner products and the notation used.

Discussion Status

Some participants express confusion about the definitions and properties of positive operators, while others provide clarifications regarding the notation and the implications of self-adjointness. There is an ongoing exploration of the concepts involved, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

One participant notes their lack of formal background in linear algebra, which may affect their understanding of the problem. The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with the terminology and concepts involved.

LPB
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let T be a positive operator on a Hilbert space H. Pick an orthonormal basis {e1,e2,...,en} for H. Let A=[aij] be the nxn matrix representation of T with respect to the basis {e1,e2,...,en}, so that Tej=[tex]\sum[/tex]aijei, j=1,2,...,n. (The summation is from i=1 to n; I'm not sure how to show that on here.)
Show that A is a positive matrix,; i.e. for all x[tex]\in[/tex]C, x*Ax[tex]\geq[/tex]0.


The Attempt at a Solution



If T is a positive operator, then T must be self-adjoint (so T*=T), and <Tx,x>[tex]\geq[/tex]0 for all x[tex]\in[/tex]H.

I'm still new to linear algebra, so the solution may be obvious ... I just don't see what to do. If someone could explain this, using simple language, I would much appreciate it. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You've got me confused. Isn't the definition of a positive operator T, <x,Tx>>=0 for all x? If A is a matrix representation of T, then isn't <x,Ax>=<x,Tx>? Where the x in the left side is the abstract vector in the Hilbert space and on the right side is the column vector in the {e_i} basis? Are you really new to linear algebra? And I don't see why a positive operator needs to be self adjoint. Am I in over my head here?
 
The definition given in my textbook for a positive operator is:
Let T:H[tex]\rightarrow[/tex]H be a linear operator. Then T is called positive if T is self-adjoing and <Tx,x> [tex]\geq[/tex] 0 for all x [tex]\in[/tex] H. We write T [tex]\geq[/tex] 0 for any positive operator.

I'm taking a course that suggests two semesters of linear algebra as a prerequisite, and this is one of the problems in the "review of linear algebra." However, I haven't actually taken linear algebra, so I'm trying to teach myself as I go. So sometimes I miss things that are very obvious, since I'm not yet used to the terminology, etc. For instance, I'm still confused about the role of * ... I know that it shows that a matrix is adjoint, so it's the conjugate transpose, but to be honest, I'm not quite sure what x*Ax means.

I hope this helps... Thanks for your help!
 
Ok, if it's defined to be self adjoint, then I guess it's self adjoint. x*Ax (and I'd write that as (x*)Ax) means the conjugate transpose of x (a column vector) times the matrix A times x. So x* is a row vector. In the inner product notation this is <x,Ax>. Since A is matrix representation of T, that means <x,Ax>=<x,Tx> (with subtly different meaning for x, as I said). If T is self adjoint, <x,Tx>=<Tx,x>. That T is self adjoint means A=A*. This is a nasty question if you are coming in without the background you need. Because it's heavy on definitions and light on substance. If you understand all of the definitions, there's not much to prove.
 
Thank you - I think that makes sense! The explanation of (x*)Ax was especially helpful. I've rewritten the steps so I think they make sense to me. The basic "flow" that I ended up with is:

(x*)Ax = <x,Ax> = <x,Tx> = <Tx,x> [tex]\geq[/tex] 0

Does this seem right?

Again, thank you - I really appreciate your help!
 
LPB said:
Thank you - I think that makes sense! The explanation of (x*)Ax was especially helpful. I've rewritten the steps so I think they make sense to me. The basic "flow" that I ended up with is:

(x*)Ax = <x,Ax> = <x,Tx> = <Tx,x> [tex]\geq[/tex] 0

Does this seem right?

Again, thank you - I really appreciate your help!

That's how I understand it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K