Uncovering Surprising Properties of the Cholesky Decomposition

amateur82
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I noticed a funny thing. The Cholesky decomposition can be defined as X=AB, where A is lower triangular. Generally Y=BA is not X, but Y seems to be a positive definite matrix. I wonder if there is any special properties to the pair (X,Y). I know that a positive definite matrix can be interpreted as a metric. So a pair of conjugate metrics?

It is also funny that the product AB is not commutative. You would think so, since A=B'. So when you map by X, first you turn to direction B, and then to orthogonal direction. For some reason this seems to be completely different than turning first to orthogonal direction and then to direction B...

edit: played around more, and found out, that it's not actually a pair, but a sequence of positive definite matrices! chol(Y) doesn't involve A and B, but some other triangular matrices. So a map from psd matrix to another X -> Y -> Z... does anybody know where this sequence leads?
 
Last edited:
A diagonal matrix is trivially a fixed point of this process. (As for a diagonal matrix, A=B, and consequently, X=Y.) Numerical experiments show that all these sequences seem to converge to a diagonal matrix, yet the rate of convergence is different, even for matrices of same dimension. So perhaps this could be used as a 'grade' to rank matrices. For 2x2 matrices, the map is easy to give explicitly. If we denote an arbitrary member of sequence as X(t), we have

x(t+1)11 = x(t)11 + x(t)122 / x(t)11
x(t+1)12 = (x(t)12 / √x(t)11)√(x(t)22 - x(t)122 / x(t)11)
x(t+1)22 = x(t)11 - x(t)122 / x(t)11.

So the map contracts x(t+1)22 and increases x(t+1)11 uniformly, and maintains the sign of x(t+1)12. This wasn't true for off-diagonals of larger matrices, at least according to numerical trials. It would probably be easy to derive other properties for the Cholesky seqeunece in M(2x2); please feel free to try. I'm not expecting any major scientific breakthrough from here!
 
##\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...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Back
Top