Proving the special property of diagonal matrix?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of diagonal matrices, specifically whether any function of a diagonal matrix can be expressed solely in terms of its diagonal elements. Participants explore the implications of this property, particularly in relation to proving that the exponential of a diagonal matrix is unitary.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the provability of the property that any function of a diagonal matrix is a function of its elements, expressing uncertainty about how to prove this beyond specific cases like multiplication and symmetry.
  • Another participant suggests using a Taylor expansion as a method to approach the proof, indicating that defining the property is acceptable and aligns with other methods.
  • A later reply challenges the initial claim by stating that not all functions of a diagonal matrix yield a diagonal matrix, providing a counterexample of a function that results in a non-diagonal matrix.
  • This participant notes that if a function is defined using a Taylor series with a diagonal constant term, then it will map diagonal matrices to diagonal matrices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the generality of the property regarding functions of diagonal matrices. While some propose methods to support the claim, others contest its validity by providing counterexamples, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the assumptions made about functions of diagonal matrices and the conditions under which certain properties hold, particularly in relation to the form of the functions used.

Seydlitz
Messages
262
Reaction score
4
Is it possible to prove the fact that any function of diagonal matrix is just a function of its element?

I don't know how I could express the proof. I can prove that a multiplication of diagonal matrix will just be the multiplication of its element using summation notation, or diagonal matrix is automatically symmetrical matrix, but for the more general case I'm at lost. The book that I'm reading also assume directly that it's the case. Indeed it's the case, but is it just a definition that is unprovable?

I'm asking this because I want to prove that ##e^{iD}## of diagonal matrix is unitary using other method than series expansion and the fact that diagonal matrix is just very important for eigenvalues. If I use the fact that the exponent of diagonal matrix is just the exponent of its element, then proof is straightforward. But then you might think this is difficult to justify without proof:

$$(e^{iD})_{ij}=e^{iD_{ij}}$$

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One approach is to use a Taylor expansion.
Another is to assume that -in the end- everything end up in expressions involving the four elementary operations.
Taking it as a definition in not that bad, as this is very close to the two other approaches I mentioned.
 
That actually makes sense to me, thanks! :)
 
It's not true that any function of a diagonal matrix will give a diagonal matrix; for example the function which sends every matrix to
\left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 &amp; 1\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)
clearly outputs non-diagonal matrices.

It's a special property that if you define your function with a Taylor series, and the constant term is diagonal, that every diagonal matrix will get mapped to a diagonal matrix (whose entries are the appropriate Taylor series)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K