Proof that (x^t)Ax>0 if Eigenvalues of Matrix A > 0

megaman
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am looking for a rather simple proof that if the matrix A has eigenvalues>0, then (x^t)Ax>0 for any vector x not 0.

My first tought was if the eigenvalues are bigger than 0, then (x^t)Ax=(x^t)"eigenvaulue"x="eigenvalue"(x^t)x>0, if x is nonzero and eigenvalues is bigger than 0.

Is this proof good enough? I am a little unsure, becuase I think I have not proven it for all x, just the eigenvectors.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what you mean by '(x^t)"eigenvaulue" x'. which eigenvalue?

It is true that if A is diagonalizable, then it is similar to a diagonal matrix having the eigenvalues on the diagonal.

For example, if A itself is
A= \begin{bmatrix}a_1 & 0 \\ 0 & a_2\end{bmatrix}
where a_1 and a_2 are both positive, we have
x^*Ax= \begin{bmatrix}x_1 & x_2 \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}a_1 & 0 \\ 0 & a_2\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}x_1 \\ x_2\end{bmatrix}
= a_1x_1^2+ a_2x_2^2[/itex] <br /> which is postive because it is the sum of two positive numbers (or one positive number and 0).<br /> <br /> But not all matrices are diagonalizable.
 
You'll have a hard time proving this statement because it's not true.

Consider the following matrix:

<br /> A= \begin{bmatrix}9 &amp; 5.5 \\ 1 &amp; 1\end{bmatrix}

The eigenvalues of A are both positive (verify).

Let x = (1,-3.1)T

Then
x^*Ax= \begin{bmatrix} 1 &amp; -3.1 \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}9 &amp; 5.5 \\ 1 &amp; 1\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}1 \\ -3.1\end{bmatrix} = -1.54<br />

The relationship you describe is true a) if A is symmetric or b) if (A+A*)/2 is positive definite.
 
hgfalling said:
You'll have a hard time proving this statement because it's not true.

Consider the following matrix:

<br /> A= \begin{bmatrix}9 &amp; 5.5 \\ 1 &amp; 1\end{bmatrix}

The eigenvalues of A are both positive (verify).

Let x = (1,-3.1)T

Then
x^*Ax= \begin{bmatrix} 1 &amp; -3.1 \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}9 &amp; 5.5 \\ 1 &amp; 1\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}1 \\ -3.1\end{bmatrix} = -1.54<br />

The relationship you describe is true a) if A is symmetric or b) if (A+A*)/2 is positive definite.
Well done.
 
##\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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top