3
$\begingroup$

Suppose $G$ is a Hermitian $n \times n$ matrix and $A$ is some $n \times n$ matrix over complex numbers. such that $G-A^H G A$ is positive-definite.

Then can we show that $G$ is invertible?

Also, can we conclude anything about the eigenvalues of the matrix $A$ in terms of the eigenvalues of $G$ (for instance, relate the number of positive eigenvalues of $G$ with the eigenvalues of $A$ of norm less than 1)?

4 Answers 4

0

Another solution would be to show that $G$ does not admit the eigenvalue $0$. (Then G $is$ invertible because it is hermitien). This can be shown by contradiction: Let $x$ be the eigenvector to the eigenvalue $0$ of $G$. Then $x^t(G-A^tGA)x^t>0$ gives (since $Gx=0$):

$-(Ax)^tG(Ax)>0$.

Now you can argue in the same way as chaohuang.

  • 0
    Yes, chaohuang is of course false, I did not read it properly. So in fact this does not work properly how I tried.2012-09-10
2

Let $G$ be non invertible matrix. Then singular value decomposition of $G$, $G=USV^T$ will have at least one singular value $\sigma_n=0$.

Now consider the singluar value decomposition of $G-A^HGA=U^{'}S^{'}V^{'T}$ where we have $\sigma^{'}_i\neq 0$ for all $i$.

As $G$ has singularity, $A^HGA$ shouldnt such that $G-A^HGA$ is positive definite. From this, we can write the SVD of $A^HGA$ as

$A^HGA=(U^*S^*V^{*})^HUSV^TU^*S^*V^{*}=usv^T$

where

$s=S^*S^*S$

which has $\sigma_n=0$. Therefore $G$ can not be non-invertible.

  • 0
    Now I must force $G-A^HGA$ to have no singular value equals to zero, given $G$ has at least one singular value equals to zero. As I showed that this is impossible, I can conclude that if $G$ is non-invertible then $G-A^HGA$ can not be positive definite as positive definite matix doesnt allow any zero singular value. Therefore I finally conclude that $G$ should be positive definite such that G-A^HGA>02012-09-02
2

Since $G-A^*GA$ is Hermitian and positive definite, we can find $m>0$ such that $\forall x\in\Bbb C^n,\quad x^*Gx-(Ax)^*G(Ax)\geq m\lVert x\rVert^2.$ This gives, by induction, that for all $x\in\Bbb C^n$, $(A^px)^*G(A^px)\leq x^*Gx-m\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}\lVert A^jx\rVert^2.$ The initial assumption gives that $G-(A^p)^*GA^p\geq 0$ and that each eigenvalue of $A$ is of modulus $<1$. Therefore, using Jordan form of $A$, we get that $G\geq 0$. We get $m\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}\lVert A^jx\rVert^2\leq x^*Gx,$ and the wanted result.

  • 0
    It's unfortunately not necessarily true for example when $G=-I$ and $A=2I$. So my argument works if $G\geq 0$, but it can be deduced of the others. I conclude I need to think more about the problem.2012-09-15
0

$G-A^TGA$ is positive definite, so $x^T(G-A^TGA)x>0$ or $x^TGx>x^TA^TGAx$ for any $x \in \mathbb{C}^n$.

Then suppose $G$ is not invertible, then there exists $y \in \mathbb{C}^n$ such that $Gy=0$, then we have $y^TA^TGAy

Since $A$ is arbitrary, the left side of the above inequality means $G$ is negative definite, which is contradict to the assumption that $G$ is not invertible.

So $G$ is invertible.

  • 0
    Well, it still has to satisfy the positive definiteness condition of $G-A^H G A$. It cannot be just any matrix. I shall edit it if thats ambiguous.2012-09-02