1
$\begingroup$

Let $s$ $$ \sum_{i,j=0}^{n}s_{i+j}c_ic_j\ge 0$$ for all $c_i$. I know that if the scalars $c_i$'s are zero then the quadratic form $$ \sum_{i,j=0}^{n}s_{i+j}c_ic_j = 0.$$ How can I justify that if $$ \sum_{i,j=0}^{n}s_{i+j}c_ic_j = 0.$$ then $c_1=c_2= \cdots c_n=0$ (Note we assume that the $s_{i+j}$ are non-zero). I will be extremely happy if someone can please help me with this.

I tried expanding the whole quadratic form but that doesn't seem to help me. Thanks.

  • 0
    Why did you write $s_{i+j}$ rather than the more common $s_{ij}$ or sometimes $s_{i,j}$2017-02-22
  • 0
    I think to imply that this is the quadratic form of a Hankel matrix, which is otherwise not apparent. The notations are not equivalent.2017-02-22
  • 0
    @BadamBaplan could be. In any case i knew the meanings were different. It is sometimes difficult to get an OP to look at what they typed in and admit that there is any problem with it. In this case, it would be nice if Gomez wrote either Yes, I meant a Hankel matrix or No, I meant this other thing.2017-02-22
  • 0
    Yes, I meant Hankel matrix.2017-02-22

3 Answers 3

2

Unfortunately this isn't true as written.
Consider the quadratic form $s_0c_0^2 + 2s_1c_0c_1 + s_2c_1^2$. Take $s_0 = s_1 = s_2 = 1$. Then the form is $(c_0 + c_1)^2$. This has the nontrivial zero $c_0 = -c1$.
So we have a nontrivial quadratic form which is always nonnegative, but it has infinitely many nontrivial zeros.

Let's clarify a couple things. The sequence $(s_n)$ is assumed to be positive definite. That translates to $\sum\limits_{i,j=0}^{n}s_{i+j}c_i\bar{c_j} > 0$ for nonzero $c$. The strict $>$ and nonzero $c$ are really important here. First of all it implies that $s_0$ is nonzero, and it makes sense to talk about normalizing the sequence $s$ no matter what.
Second of all it implies that, for your putative norm $||P||^2 = \sum\limits_{i,j=0}^{n}s_{i+j}c_i\bar{c_j}$ (where $P = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{n/2}c_ix^i)$, you have that $||P||^2 = 0$ iff $c = 0$, which is I think the problem you were having.

  • 0
    Thank you. But if we have the quadratic form to be zero, what conclusion can i make on the $c_i$'s?2017-02-22
  • 0
    Can I show you a reference in which they argued that this is true?2017-02-22
  • 0
    Yes please! If this is coming from a reliable reference then we likely have a miscommunication of some kind2017-02-22
  • 0
    https://books.google.ca/books?id=2DKCeCy24qoC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=berg+lecture+notes&source=bl&ots=r3TYzDn-EB&sig=EQCzJASvSoWKRMQYh2IB2tWgfNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiExpu36aTSAhXLi1QKHVqzDBIQ6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&q=berg%20lecture%20notes&f=false2017-02-23
  • 0
    Please check page 29 and 55. I need to see that this is true to get a desired inner product2017-02-23
  • 0
    Badam, after the comment just before this, Gomez placed an image from a book as an answer, assuming you would look at it.2017-02-23
  • 0
    @Will, I will be glad also if you could please look at it too. Thanks.2017-02-23
1

You cannot. E.g. when all $s_k$s are zero, the sum is always zero regardless of the values of the $c_j$s.

In general, what you want to prove is correct if the associated $(n+1)\times(n+1)$ Hankel matrix $H=(h_{ij})_{0\le i,j\le n}$ given by $h_{ij}=s_{i+j}$ is positive definite. See Positive definite sequence and its corresponding determinant. for more details.

  • 0
    The user did specify that the $s_k$ are assumed nonzero, but that doesn't fix it.2017-02-22
  • 0
    @BadamBaplan I requested a clarification from the OP, why the unusual $s_{i+j}$2017-02-22
0

enter image description here

Please look at this image. You will see that I need to show the asked question for $<,>$ to be an inner product. Checking that $ =0$ iff $p=0$ is my biggest worry. Also note that the attached picture is an excerpt from the lecture notes of the same author(Berg) who wrote the book that I sent you the link.

  • 0
    can you possibly link to the lecture notes? More context would help. For the norm to make sense we need to know, for example, that $s_k$ is real.2017-02-23
  • 0
    I do have the pdf file. I don't know how I can get it here. @Badam is there anyway I can get it you please? I have been on stuck on this problem for days now. I would really appreciate it if you can please bail me out.2017-02-23
  • 0
    Yah.!! @Badam I was able to create a link for it. Please find attached. Could you please check page 67 and 68? https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxWfjJsJw6m3Z0tsUUJQSDgyYV94OXllWWs4Ti1NLVFPRmlr2017-02-23
  • 0
    awesome that clarifies. the key is that the sequence $s$ is fixed as a positive definite sequence. Berg notes that that is equivalent to all of the associated Hankel matrices having positive determinant, but actually that is in turn equivalent to all of the Hankel matrices being positive definite (see my answer to another question which user1551 referenced). Now, a positive definite Hermitian matrix induces an innner product, as you want.2017-02-23
  • 0
    First, i would like to say thank you for your time. Yes, I totally understand what you explained. I check all the properties of an inner product and it works perfectly fine but I was unable to convince myself that $ = \sum_{i,j=0}^{n}s_{i+j}c_ic_j = 0 $ implies that $p=0$. I was able to show the reverse case but the forward case I cant show. That is the part I need clarification.2017-02-23
  • 0
    Ok I updated my answer. I think you are slightly off on your definition of positive definite and that's all.2017-02-23
  • 0
    Got it Badam. That was my problem. Thank you so much.2017-02-23