Maximise the following expression subject to the constraint

brendan_foo
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

I wish to maximise the following expression subject to the constraint that \|\underline{w}\| = 1, and \mathbb{R} is fixed.

<br /> P = \underline{w}^H \mathbb{G}^H\mathbb{G}\underline{w}<br /> = \underline{w}^H \mathbb{R} \underline{w}<br />

where

<br /> \mathbb{R} \triangleq \mathbb{G}^H\mathbb{G}<br />

I proceed to determine the maximum value, and the value of \underline{w} that achieves it through the general eigenvalue problem and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

Recall that I can only modify w, and its norm is fixed to unity.

<br /> |\langle \underline{w},\mathbb{R}\underline{w}\rangle| \leq \|\underline{w}\|\|\mathbb{R}\underline{w}\|<br />

This achieves equality iff

<br /> \mathbb{R}\underline{w} = \lambda \underline{w}<br />

and will be subsequently maximised if the dominant eigenvector is chosen, such that

<br /> \mathbb{R}\underline{w} = \lambda_{max} \underline{w}<br />

Which then yields a maximum value of P as

<br /> P = \lambda_{max} \|w\|^2 = \lambda_{max}<br />

I just want to doubly check with you guys that this is correct.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The if clause is ok, I'm not sure about the only if direction, i.e. whether an eigenvector is forced. The above is a quadratic form, so a classical solution with e.g. Lagrange multipliers should do.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
42
Views
10K
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
3
Replies
114
Views
10K
2
Replies
61
Views
11K
2
Replies
67
Views
11K
Replies
48
Views
11K
Back
Top