What is the difference between the two definitions of Schur decomposition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter junglebeast
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Decomposition
junglebeast
Messages
514
Reaction score
2
Wikipedia defines the Shur decomposition of matrix A as

A = Q U Q^{-1}

where Q is unitary and U is upper triangular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schur_decomposition

Mathworld defines the Shur decomposition of matrix A as

Q^H A Q = T,

where Q is unitary and T is upper triangular.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SchurDecomposition.html

Because Q is unitary, the inverse is the same as the conjugate transpose...but they still seem like completely different definitions because the matrix is either on the inside or the outside. What's the truth?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since Q^H = Q^-1, you have

Q Q^H A Q = Q T
=>
Q Q^-1 A Q = Q T
=>
I A Q = Q T
=>
A Q = Q T
=>
A Q Q^-1 = Q T Q^-1
=>
A I = Q T Q^-1
=>
A = Q T Q^-1
 
Wow, I feel stupid for not noticing that! Thanks
 
A is just a change of basis, I'd recommend reviewing change of basis in lin alg
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top