Which Unitary Matrices Keep A - UBU† Positive Definite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidK
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrices Positive
DavidK
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
An Hermitian matrix H is positive definite if all its eigenvalues are nonzero and positive. Assume that the matrices A,B are positve definite, and that the difference A-B is positve definite. Now, for which unitary matrices, U, is it true that the matrix A-UBU^{\dagger} is positve definite.

I haven't been able to solve this problems, and I'm not sure if it is because it is to difficult (i.e. the only way to solve it is to check for all U) or because I'm to incompetent. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

/David
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't bothered to try this out fully so I may be going up a blind alley, but how about the definition of positive definite involving the inner product, i.e. (Ax,x) > 0 for all x in the vector space V? Then, ((A-B)x,x) > 0 if A - B is to be positive definite.
 
I deleted, and then resubmitted this post:

Here is a start:

A = \left[ \begin {array}{cc} 2 &0 \\ 0 &3 \end {array} \right]
B = \left[ \begin {array}{cc} 1 &0 \\ 0 &2 \end {array} \right]
U = \left[ \begin {array}{cc} 0 &1 \\ 1 &0 \end {array} \right]

A is positive definite, B is positive definite, A - B is positive definite, but A - UBU^{-1} is not positive definite.

This points to what can go wrong in the general case.
 
I think I have solved the problem for the 2\times2 case. A positive matrix A can in this case be expressed as:

<br /> <br /> A=\frac{\mbox{Tr}(A)}{2}(I+r_x \sigma_x+r_y\sigma_y + r_z \sigma_z), <br /> <br />

where \sigma_x, \sigma_y, \sigma_z are the standard Pauli matrices, and \bar{r}_a=(r_x,r_y,r_z) is a 3-vector of length less than one. This means that the difference between the matrices A and UBU^{\dagger} is positive iff

<br /> <br /> \frac{\mbox{Tr}(A)-\mbox{Tr}(B)}{2} \geq \frac{|\mbox{Tr}(A)\bar{r}_a-<br /> \mbox{Tr}(B)\bar{r}_b|}{2}, <br /> <br />

where the angle between the vectors \bar{r}_a,\bar{r}_b is given by the unitary U. I'm, however, not sure if it is possible to solve the general problem using this approach.

/David
 
Last edited:
Davids got the right idea. For any unitary matrix, U^{\dagger} = U^-1. For any matrix A, Tr(A)= Tr(DAD^-1).

If A - B is positive definite, then Tr(A - B) > 0 .

Tr(A - UBU^{\dagger}) = Tr(A - B) &gt; 0.

Tr( A - B) > 0 is necessary, but it isn't sufficient. I'd start looking at how a unitary transform affects the eigenvalues of a a matrix.
 
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top