Question about induced matrix norm

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter charlies1902
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induced Matrix Norm
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The induced matrix norm for a square matrix A is defined as ||A|| = sup (||Ax|| / ||x||), where ||x|| is a vector norm. The numerator ||Ax|| is indeed a vector norm, as it satisfies the properties of non-negativity, scalability, and the triangle inequality. The norm is applicable to the entire vector space of linear transformations and is not restricted to non-singular matrices. However, if A is singular, then ||Ax|| = 0 for all non-zero vectors x, which implies that A must be the zero matrix.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector norms and their properties
  • Familiarity with linear transformations
  • Knowledge of matrix theory, particularly square matrices
  • Basic concepts of supremum in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of vector norms in detail
  • Explore the implications of singular and non-singular matrices in linear algebra
  • Learn about the applications of induced matrix norms in functional analysis
  • Investigate the concept of linear transformations between vector spaces of different dimensions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of linear algebra, and anyone involved in functional analysis or matrix theory will benefit from this discussion.

charlies1902
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
The induced matrix norm for a square matrix ##A## is defined as:

##\lVert A \rVert= sup\frac{\lVert Ax \rVert}{\lVert x \rVert}##
where ##\lVert x \rVert## is a vector norm.
sup = supremum

My question is: is the numerator ##\lVert Ax \rVert## a vector norm?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
charlies1902 said:
The induced matrix norm for a square matrix ##A## is defined as:

##\lVert A \rVert= sup\frac{\lVert Ax \rVert}{\lVert x \rVert}##
where ##\lVert x \rVert## is a vector norm.
sup = supremum

My question is: is the numerator ##\lVert Ax \rVert## a vector norm?
The same as in the denominator.
 
The denominator is a vector norm, so are we saying that the numerator is a vector norm for all square A matrices?
 
charlies1902 said:
The denominator is a vector norm, so are we saying that the numerator is a vector norm for all square A matrices?
##Ax## is a vector, so ##||Ax||## is a vector norm. It makes sense to choose the same.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pyroknife
fresh_42 said:
##Ax## is a vector, so ##||Ax||## is a vector norm. It makes sense to choose the same.
Is this norm defined only for non-singular matrix A?
 
pyroknife said:
Is this norm defined only for non-singular matrix A?
It's defined for the whole vector space of linear transformations. It has to satisfy ##||A|| = 0 ⇒ A = 0##. It can't be more singular.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pyroknife
fresh_42 said:
It's defined for the whole vector space of linear transformations. It has to satisfy ##||A|| = 0 ⇒ A = 0##. It can't be more singular.
I see. I have a task to prove that the norm defined by the OP is indeed a norm. In your post (the quoted), that is one of the conditions, but I am not given if A is singular/nonsingular, so essentially I have to prove that A can't be singular in order for this to satisfy the criterion of a norm.

Is this an alternative explanation why A cannot be singular?
 
The singularity, defect or rank have nothing to do with the defined norm to be one. The linear transformations may not even to be between vector spaces of the same dimension.
To start with: What do you know about your vector norm?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pyroknife
fresh_42 said:
The singularity, defect or rank have nothing to do with the defined norm to be one. The linear transformations may not even to be between vector spaces of the same dimension.
To start with: What do you know about your vector norm?
I know that a vector norm has to satisfy the 3 criteria:
1.
##\lVert x \rVert \geq 0##
##\lVert x \rVert \geq 0## = 0 IFF x = 0

2.
##\lVert constant*x \rVert = \mid constant \mid * \lVert x \rVert##

3.
##\lVert x+y \rVert \leq \lVert x \rVert+ \lVert y \rVert##
 
  • #10
So ##||Ax|| = 0## implies what for which ##x##? Similar the linearity. For the triangle inequality pull the factor ##||x||^{-1}## into the numerator.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pyroknife
  • #11
fresh_42 said:
So ##||Ax|| = 0## implies what for which ##x##? Similar the linearity. For the triangle inequality pull the factor ##||x||^{-1}## into the numerator.
Well the induced matrix norm is defined for ##x \neq 0##,
so ##x## can be any vector other than the zero vector.

But what if you have the matrix
A = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}

and

x = \begin{bmatrix}
1\\
0\\
0
\end{bmatrix}

Here we can see that A is singular, but Ax = 0, so the vector norm of Ax is satisfied, but A is not the zero matrix?
 
  • #12
pyroknife said:
Well the induced matrix norm is defined for ##x \neq 0##,
so ##x## can be any vector other than the zero vector.

But what if you have the matrix
A = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}

and

x = \begin{bmatrix}
1\\
0\\
0
\end{bmatrix}

Here we can see that A is singular, but Ax = 0, so the vector norm of Ax is satisfied, but A is not the zero matrix?
However, it's not the maximum / supremum choice for ##x##.
If the maximum is zero, then all are. The 'iff' condition on vector norms gives you ##Ax = 0## for all ##x ≠ 0##. For ##x=0## it's clearly also true. So ##A## has to be?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pyroknife
  • #13
fresh_42 said:
However, it's not the maximum / supremum choice for ##x##.
If the maximum is zero, then all are. The 'iff' condition on vector norms gives you ##Ax = 0## for all ##x ≠ 0##. For ##x=0## it's clearly also true. So ##A## has to be?
Oh I see. I disregarded the fact that Ax = 0 for ##\textbf{ALL}## ## x \neq 0##
In order to satisfy Ax=0 for all non-trivial x, A must be zero.
Right?
 
  • #14
Yes. That's the definition of the zero map. For the scalars you use the next condition for vector norms. For the triangle inequality the third.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pyroknife
  • #15
For the triangle inequality you don't have to pull the ##||x^{-1}||## into the numerator. I first thought it would be easier but it makes no difference.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K