Proving the Wielandt-Hoffman inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Demon117
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Demon117
Messages
162
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


For a symmetric matrix A, use the notation \lambda_{k}\left(A\right) to denote the k^{th} largest eigenvalue, thus

\lambda_{n}\left(A\righ)<=...<=\lambda_{2}\left(A\right)<=\lambda_{1}\left(A\right)

Now suppose A and A+E are nxn symmetric matrices, prove the following results:

(a) \sum(\lambda_{i}\left(A+E\right)-\lambda_{i}\left(A\right))^{2}<=norm(E)_{F}^{2} (Frobenius norm).

(b)|\lambda_{k}\left(A+E\right)-\lambda_{k}\left(A\right)|<=norm(E)_{2} (2-norm) for k=1,...,n.


Homework Equations


Courant-Fischer Minimax theorem
\lambda_{k}\left(A\right)+\lambda_{k}\left(E\right)<=\lambda_{k}\left(A+E\right)<=\lambda_{k}\left(A\right)+\lambda_{1}\left(E\right)



The Attempt at a Solution


I am not really sure how to use the Courant-Fischer Minimax theorem to establish that relationship in 2. If I had some pointers I am sure I could produce something.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
you all helped a bunch...
 
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