What Makes a Hermitian Matrix Positive Definite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrainHurts
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matricies Positive
BrainHurts
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
on page 261 of this paper by J. Vermeer (http://www.math.technion.ac.il/iic/e..._pp258-283.pdf ) he writes

The following assertions are equivalent.
a) A is similar to a Hermitian matrix
b) A is similar to a Hermitian matrix via a Hermitian, positive definite matrix
c) A is similar to A* via a Hermitian, positive definite matrix

anyway the proof of a)\Rightarrowc) he writes:
"There exists a V\inMn(ℂ) such that VAV-1 is Hermitian, i.e. VAV-1=(VAV-1)*=(V*)-1A*V*. We obtain:

V*VA(V*V)-1=A*

V*V is the required Hermitian and positive definite matrix."

My questions is how do we know V*V is positive definite? I know it's Hermitian, i know that V*V has real eigenvalues and I know V*V is unitarily diagonalizable.

I don't think that V*V is Hermitian is enough right? Does this mean that a matrix B being Hermitian is a sufficient but not necessary condition for B to be positive definite?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Let e_i be a H-orthonormal diagonalizing basis for V*V. Here H is the standard hermitian product on C^n. The existence of such a basis is equivalent to diagonalizability of V*V by a unitary matrix because the unitary condition is just that the columns are H-orthonormal.
The ith eigenvalue of V*V is then H(e_i,V^*Ve_i)=e_i^*V^*Ve_i=e_i^*V^*e_ie_i^*Ve_i=(e_i^*Ve_i)^*(e_i^*Ve_i)=H(e_i^*Ve_i,e_i^*Ve_i)=|e_i^*Ve_i|^2\geq 0

But "=0" is not possible since V*V is invertible. Therefor wrt the basis e_i, the matrix of V*V is diagonal with all nonpositive diagonal entries, so it's positive definite.
 
Hi this is really helpful thank you but I have one more question are the ei are the standard basis vectors in ℂn?

you wrote H(ei, V*Vei)=ei*V*Vei

=ei*V*eiei*Vei

I'm a little confused on where this eiei*, this is the matrix with the iith entry being 1 and zeroes everywhere else correct?
 
Last edited:
Mh! Maybe my argument is flawed. try this much simpler one instead: H(v,V^*Vv) =H(Vv,Vv)=|Vv|^2 for all v. If v is not zero, neither is Vv since V is invertible.
 
i thought the first one was nice, umm let me think about this one for a bit, either way thanks!
 
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