Is the Adjoint of a Unitary Matrix Still Unitary?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the adjoint of a product of matrices, specifically adjoint(AB) = adjoint(B) * adjoint(A), holds true for both real and complex matrices. The initial proof approach involves taking the transpose and applying the adjoint operation, which works for real elements. It is clarified that when dealing with complex matrices, one must include complex conjugates in the proof, but the overall structure remains unchanged. The definition of the adjoint is also referenced to support the argument. The conclusion emphasizes that the proof is valid for both real and imaginary elements with appropriate adjustments for complex conjugates.
Kolahal Bhattacharya
Messages
133
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



I am to prove that adjoint of(AB)= adjoint of B times adjoint of A

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I satrted this as U=adjoint of AB
u_ik=sum(j)[(a_ij)*(b_jk)]
I know then,I may take tarnspose of both sides so that we have:[(u_ki)~]=sum(j){[(b_kj)~][(a_ji)~]}
then [U~]=[B~][A~]
Then,we are done.But,this proves for real elements.I am not sure that this proves also for imaginary elements...
Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kolahal Bhattacharya said:

Homework Statement



I am to prove that adjoint of(AB)= adjoint of B times adjoint of A

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I satrted this as U=adjoint of AB
u_ik=sum(j)[(a_ij)*(b_jk)]
I know then,I may take tarnspose of both sides so that we have:[(u_ki)~]=sum(j){[(b_kj)~][(a_ji)~]}
then [U~]=[B~][A~]
Then,we are done.But,this proves for real elements.I am not sure that this proves also for imaginary elements...
Please help.

The proof works exactlythe same way, you just have to include a complex conjugate of the elements when you take the adjoint. Taking the complex conjugate does not change anything to the indices, so the proof still works...you just have complex conjugates everywhere.
 
OK,I thought of this possibility as I am not using any extra property of complex matrices.
Do I need to write (a_ij)* in those cases?
 
I think you guys are making this too complicated. By definition:

<x,Ay>=<adjoint(A)x,y> for all x,y.

So:

<x,ABy>=<x,A(By)>=<adjoint(A)x,By>=<adjoint(B)*adjoint(A)x,y> for all x,y.
 
Last edited:
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K