Proving (My) = (M*x).y | Complex Vectors and Matrices

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nick89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
Nick89
Messages
553
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This was a question in a recent exam and I would like to know if the answer I gave is correct since I not 100% sure...

If [itex]\mathbf{x}[/itex] and [itex]\mathbf{y}[/itex] are complex vectors in C^n (complex) and [itex]M[/itex] is a square (n x n)-matrix (also in C^n), prove that:
[tex]\mathbf{x} \cdot (M \mathbf{y}) = (M^* \mathbf{x}) \cdot \mathbf{y}[/tex]
(where M* denotes the complex conjugate + the transpose of M: [itex]M^* = \overline{M}^T[/itex]
(The dot denotes the standard complex dot-product)


The Attempt at a Solution


I did the following:

[tex]\mathbf{x} \cdot \mathbf{y} = \mathbf{x}^T \mathbf{\overline{y}}[/tex]
So
[tex]\mathbf{x} \cdot (M \mathbf{y}) = \mathbf{x}^T \overline{M \mathbf{y}} = \mathbf{x}^T \overline{M} \overline{\mathbf{y}}[/tex]

Now:
[tex]\mathbf{x}^T \overline{M} = (M^* \mathbf{x})^T[/tex] because [tex](M^* \mathbf{x})^T = \mathbf{x}^T (M^*)^T = \mathbf{x}^T \overline{M}[/tex]

So, now we have:
[tex]\mathbf{x} \cdot (M \mathbf{y}) = (M^* \mathbf{x})^T \overline{\mathbf{y}} = (M^* \mathbf{x}) \cdot \mathbf{y}[/tex]


Is this solution correct? Or did I make an error somewhere? (I'm not entirely sure of the very first statement for example...)

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that's basically correct. But if you aren't sure of the first statement, look up how you defined the inner product. You could also have written your definition x.y=(y*)x. An equally valid definition of inner product is x.y=(x*)y. The first inner product is antilinear in y and the second one is antilinear in x. The choice of one or the other is a matter of convention.
 
Well that was really the problem. The book we are using first defines inner products on the real numbers, it defines the standard dot product as:
[tex]\vec{x} \cdot \vec{y} = \sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i[/tex]
and it is then shown that x.y = x^T y.

Then it goes on later about the complex numbers. It does define the standard dot product as:
[tex]\vec{x} \cdot \vec{y} = \sum_{i=1}^n x_i \overline{y_i}[/tex]
but it does NOT explicitly show that the dotproduct can also be written as [tex]\mathbf{x}^T \overline{\mathbf{y}}[/tex].
I can easily verify that this works but I wasn't sure whether it is true for every condition...

So it is correct? Yay :)