Can a non-symmetric matrix be positive definite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leo321
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Positive
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A non-symmetric matrix A can contribute to a positive definite matrix when combined with its transpose, A + A^T. For A + A^T to be positive definite, it is essential that the symmetric part of A, denoted as A_S, satisfies the condition v^T A_S v > 0 for all non-zero vectors v. The discussion clarifies that while positive definite matrices are typically symmetric, the symmetric part of any matrix can be positive definite, allowing for the exploration of non-symmetric matrices in certain contexts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix algebra and quadratic forms
  • Familiarity with eigenvalues and eigenvectors
  • Knowledge of symmetric and skew-symmetric matrices
  • Basic concepts of positive definiteness in linear algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of symmetric matrices and their role in positive definiteness
  • Learn about eigenvalue conditions for positive definite matrices
  • Explore the Löewner partial ordering and its implications for matrix definiteness
  • Investigate the applications of non-symmetric matrices in optimization problems
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, data scientists, and engineers involved in linear algebra, optimization, and numerical analysis will benefit from this discussion, particularly those working with matrix properties and their applications in various fields.

Leo321
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Let A be a real nxn matrix.
What are the requirements of A for A+AT to be positive definite?
Is there a condition on eigenvalues of A, so that A+AT is positive definite?

Also I am not sure about the definition of a positive definite matrix. In some places it is written that the matrix must be symmetric, while in others it is defined for non-symmetric matrices. In many places I see theorems, which require a matrix to be positive definite and it is not clear to me if I can use it for non-symmetric matrices or not.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Grufey said:
Hello.

First, the definition:

Let's a matrix, A, is called definite positive if, vAv^t>0 for all v (v vector).

Here, I think you have the answer.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PositiveDefiniteMatrix.html

The problem is that this differs from how it is defined in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia definition is clear about symmetric matrices, but vague about non symmetric ones. So what do you do when you see some theorem, that speaks about positive definite matrices? Do you require the matrix to be symmetric or not?
 
I don't know if wikipedia is the ultimate source but definiteness is usually defined together with the partial ordering (actually Löewner partial ordering to sound very academic and sophisticated). Thus, non-hermitian definite matrices are of little use. Only gives some information about the sign of its eigenvalues. In other words A-B \succ 0 and thus A \succ B makes no sense for nonhermitian matrices.

When the matrix entries are real v^tAv = v^TA^Tv \in \mathbb{R}, hence if v^TAv > 0 for all v , then v^T(A + A^T)v = 2v^TAv> 0 for all v. Note that, I did not use the term positive definite since A might be nonsymmetric. But obviously A + A^T is symmetric hence positive definite.
 
Last edited:
Edited:

Positive definite matrix is automatically symmetric.

That was wrong in the real case. Thanks, D H.
 
Last edited:
arkajad said:
Positive definite matrix is automatically symmetric.
Not true. What can be said is that the symmetric part of a positive definite matrix is positive definite.

Any NxN matrix can be represented as a sum of a symmetric and antisymmetric (skew symmetric) matrices:

\begin{align*}<br /> A &amp;= A_S + A_A \\[4pt]<br /> A_S &amp;\equiv \frac 1 2 \left(A+A^T\right) \\[4pt]<br /> A_A &amp;\equiv \frac 1 2 \left(A-A^T\right)<br /> \end{align*}

With this notation, the quadratic form x^TAx becomes

x^TAx = x^TA_Sx + x^TA_Ax = x^TA_Sx

The final expression results because x^TA_Ax \equiv 0. The contribution of the skew symmetric part of a matrix to this quadratic form is identically zero.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K