On number of negative eigenvalues of a matrix

Sina
Messages
119
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


When trying to solve a question about parameter independence of certain aspects of the Jacobian of a real valued function on a manifold I came to the point where I have to show the following:

Let A be a matrix, J be the Jacobian of an orthogonal transformation (I suppose we can assume non-reflection) then define B to be B= JTAJ, where A and B are real symmetric. I have to show that both B and A have same number of negative eigenvalues.

The Attempt at a Solution


This problem I think translates into following:

Both A and B are real symmetric so suppose their diagonal forms are respectively D1 and D2 (ie matrices which have eigenvalues for the diagonal entries). Then there is a unitary transformation U such that D2 = UTD1U (an be shown by direct calculation). I have to now show that the number of negative diagonal entries on each D is the same. It seems logical at first because U is an orthogonal matrix but direct calculation does not yield the answer. Moreover when I try to put it into a geometric setting (i.e rotation of vectors) it seems wrong. Am I doing something wrong? edit: I think this might be a wrong approach though because I haven't used the fact that there is a Jacobian as a part of U

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
if you could show J^T = J^{-1} it would follow pretty quickly
 
I don't think it is the case, it is just the Jacobian of any orthogonal coordinate transformation (not the transformation itsself)
 
for a 2D rotation
u = x cos(\theta)+ y sin(\theta)
v = x sin(\theta)- y cos(\theta)

the jacobian is
J(x,y) = \begin{pmatrix} <br /> \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} &amp; \frac{\partial u}{\partial y }\\<br /> \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} &amp; \frac{\partial v}{\partial y}<br /> \end{pmatrix}

which is looking very similar to the transformation itself...maybe within a T... if you agree, could you generalise that?
 
Last edited:
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top