Why Are Symmetric & Non-Symmetric Matrices Not Unitarily Equivalent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter namegoeshere
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equivalent
namegoeshere
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I heard this assertion during a discussion:

If two matrices are similar, but one is symmetric and the other is not, then the two matrices are not unitarily equivalent.

Why is this true? This was only mentioned in passing, and I definitely don't understand why.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I assume that when you say "symmetric" you really mean conjugate symmetric (Hermitian). A matrix ##A## is Hermitian if it equals the complex conjugate of its transpose: ##A = A^*##.

If ##A## and ##B## are unitarily equivalent, then there exists a unitary matrix ##U## (i.e., ##U## satisfies ##U^* U = U U^* = I##) such that ##A = U^* B U##.

If ##A## is Hermitian, then ##A = A^* = U^* B^* U##. Therefore,
$$U^* B U = U^* B^* U$$
Multiplying this equation on the left by ##U## and on the right by ##U^*##, we conclude that ##B = B^*##.

In exactly the same way, we can show that if ##B^* = B##, then ##A^* = A##.

Therefore ##A## is Hermitian if and only if ##B## is Hermitian.

If all the matrices involved are real-valued, then you can replace "unitary" with "orthogonal" and "Hermitian" with "symmetric."
 
jbunniii said:
I assume that when you say "symmetric" you really mean conjugate symmetric (Hermitian). A matrix ##A## is Hermitian if it equals the complex conjugate of its transpose: ##A = A^*##.

If ##A## and ##B## are unitarily equivalent, then there exists a unitary matrix ##U## (i.e., ##U## satisfies ##U^* U = U U^* = I##) such that ##A = U^* B U##.

If ##A## is Hermitian, then ##A = A^* = U^* B^* U##. Therefore,
$$U^* B U = U^* B^* U$$
Multiplying this equation on the left by ##U## and on the right by ##U^*##, we conclude that ##B = B^*##.

In exactly the same way, we can show that if ##B^* = B##, then ##A^* = A##.

Therefore ##A## is Hermitian if and only if ##B## is Hermitian.

If all the matrices involved are real-valued, then you can replace "unitary" with "orthogonal" and "Hermitian" with "symmetric."

D'oh. Yes, I meant conjugate symmetric. Thanks. :)
 
##\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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top