Question about Hermitian matrices

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bipolarity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hermitian Matrices
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
I am trying to prove that for any two vectors x,y in ##ℂ^{n}## the product ## \langle x,y \rangle = xAy^{*} ## is an inner product where ##A## is an ##n \times n## Hermitian matrix.

This is actually a generalized problem I created out of a simpler textbook problem so I am not even sure if this is true although I believe it is true.

I proved most of the axioms for an inner product space, except the axiom that ## \langle x,x \rangle > 0 ## if ## x ≠ 0 ##. This is giving me trouble, since I first had to prove that ##<x,x>## is real (which I have done) but am still having trouble to actually prove that it is positive.

Any tips? Thanks!

BiP
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
micromass said:
What you're trying to prove is false. It won't be an inner product in general. You need ##A## to be positive-definite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive-definite_matrix

Ah I see micro! I hadn't gotten there yet in my coursework. Could you give me a counterexample please? thanks.

BiP
 
Bipolarity said:
Ah I see micro! I hadn't gotten there yet in my coursework. Could you give me a counterexample please? thanks.

BiP

It should be very easy for you to find a counterexample. You can even look for a ##1\times 1##-matrix as a counterexample.
 
Positive definite matrices are defined to give the property you are seeking.

By their definition, xAx' > 0 for all vectors x if A is positive definite and these matrices act like norms and metrics in the way they transform vectors (and are used in situations that have this property like inner products in geometry and variance/co-variance in probability/statistics).
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\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...
Back
Top