MHB Show that the tridiagonal matrix is positive definite

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Positive
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

We have the tridiagonal matrix $A=\begin{pmatrix}2 & 1 & \ldots & 0 \\ 1 & 2 & 1 & \ldots \\ \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\ 0 & \ldots & 1 & 2\end{pmatrix}$. I want to show that it is positive definite.

For that it is given the following hint:
1) $\langle x, Ax\rangle \geq 0$
2) $\langle x, Ax\rangle =0 \Rightarrow x=0$ I have done the following:

The $i$-th component of the vector $Ax$ is \begin{equation*}(Ax)_i=x_{i-1}+2x_i+x_{i+1} , \ i=1, 2, \ldots , n \ \text{ with } x_0=x_{n+1}=0\end{equation*}
Then we have the following: \begin{equation*}\langle x, Ax\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i(Ax)_i =\sum_{i=1}^nx_i\left (x_{i-1}+2x_i+x_{i+1}\right )=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i x_{i-1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^n x_ix_{i+1}\end{equation*}

Is everything correct so far? (Wondering)

Now we have to show that it is positive if the vector $x$ is not the zero vector and equal to $0$ if the vector is the zero vector, right? But how can we do that? (Wondering)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

We have the tridiagonal matrix $A=\begin{pmatrix}2 & 1 & \ldots & 0 \\ 1 & 2 & 1 & \ldots \\ \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\ 0 & \ldots & 1 & 2\end{pmatrix}$. I want to show that it is positive definite.

For that it is given the following hint:
1) $\langle x, Ax\rangle \geq 0$
2) $\langle x, Ax\rangle =0 \Rightarrow x=0$ I have done the following:

The $i$-th component of the vector $Ax$ is \begin{equation*}(Ax)_i=x_{i-1}+2x_i+x_{i+1} , \ i=1, 2, \ldots , n \ \text{ with } x_0=x_{n+1}=0\end{equation*}
Then we have the following: \begin{equation*}\langle x, Ax\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i(Ax)_i =\sum_{i=1}^nx_i\left (x_{i-1}+2x_i+x_{i+1}\right )=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i x_{i-1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^n x_ix_{i+1}\end{equation*}

Is everything correct so far? (Wondering)

Now we have to show that it is positive if the vector $x$ is not the zero vector and equal to $0$ if the vector is the zero vector, right? But how can we do that? (Wondering)

Hey mathmari!

How about trying to write it as a sum of squares?
That is, something like $(x_1+x_2)^2 + (x_2 + x_3)^2 + ...$.
Squares are always $\ge 0$ aren't they?
With equality only if all squares are $0$? (Wondering)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
How about trying to write it as a sum of squares?
That is, something like $(x_1+x_2)^2 + (x_2 + x_3)^2 + ...$.
Squares are always $\ge 0$ aren't they?
With equality only if all squares are $0$? (Wondering)

Ahh so we have the following, don't we?
\begin{align*}\langle x, Ax\rangle&=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i(Ax)_i \\ & =\sum_{i=1}^nx_i\left (x_{i-1}+2x_i+x_{i+1}\right )\\ & =\sum_{i=1}^nx_i x_{i-1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^n x_ix_{i+1} \\ & =x_1 x_{0}+\sum_{i=2}^nx_i x_{i-1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_ix_{i+1} +x_nx_{n+1} \\ & =\sum_{i=2}^nx_i x_{i-1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_ix_{i+1} \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_ix_{i+1} \\ & = 2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2 \\ & = \left (\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i^2+x_n^2\right )+2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+\left (x_1^2+\sum_{i=2}^n x_i^2\right ) \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i^2+2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+\sum_{i=2}^n x_i^2+x_1^2+x_n^2 \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i^2+2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_{i+1}^2+x_1^2+x_n^2 \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left (x_i^2+2x_i x_{i+1}+ x_{i+1}^2\right )+x_1^2+x_n^2 \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left (x_i+ x_{i+1}\right )^2+x_1^2+x_n^2 \end{align*}
So we get $$\langle x, Ax\rangle \geq 0 \ \text{ and } \ \langle x, Ax\rangle=0 \iff x_i=0 \ \forall i \iff x=0$$

(Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Ahh so we have the following, don't we?
\begin{align*}\langle x, Ax\rangle&=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i(Ax)_i \\ & =\sum_{i=1}^nx_i\left (x_{i-1}+2x_i+x_{i+1}\right )\\ & =\sum_{i=1}^nx_i x_{i-1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^n x_ix_{i+1} \\ & =x_1 x_{0}+\sum_{i=2}^nx_i x_{i-1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_ix_{i+1} +x_nx_{n+1} \\ & =\sum_{i=2}^nx_i x_{i-1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_ix_{i+1} \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_ix_{i+1} \\ & = 2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2 \\ & = \left (\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i^2+x_n^2\right )+2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+\left (x_1^2+\sum_{i=2}^n x_i^2\right ) \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i^2+2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+\sum_{i=2}^n x_i^2+x_1^2+x_n^2 \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i^2+2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i x_{i+1}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_{i+1}^2+x_1^2+x_n^2 \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left (x_i^2+2x_i x_{i+1}+ x_{i+1}^2\right )+x_1^2+x_n^2 \\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left (x_i+ x_{i+1}\right )^2+x_1^2+x_n^2 \end{align*}
So we get $$\langle x, Ax\rangle \geq 0 \ \text{ and } \ \langle x, Ax\rangle=0 \iff x_i=0 \ \forall i \iff x=0$$

(Wondering)

(Nod)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
(Nod)

Thank you! (Yes)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top