When is | | A x | | 2 </msub> &#x2264;<!-- ≤ --> | |

Araceli Clay 2022-07-02 Answered
When is | | A x | | 2 | | x | | 2 true for all x?
You can still ask an expert for help

Want to know more about Inequalities systems and graphs?

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

amanhantmk
Answered 2022-07-03 Author has 17 answers
In the finite-dimensional framework you have a normed space X, which may be assumed to be R n equipped with some norm, and you are looking at the set of linear transformations T : X X, on which you can define a norm as follows
T = max { T x : x 1 }
T = max { T x : x 1 }
Thus the norm of a linear map is the maximal "stretch" in any direction, measured in terms of the underlying norm of X. Since all linear maps of a finite dimensional space are continuous, the maximum is always attained. Moreover, it is always attained on the boundary of the unit ball of X, namely at some x X for which x = 1. Invoking convexity arguments, it can be shown that the maximum is always attained at some extreme point of the unit ball of X. These are points in the unit ball of X that cannot be expressed as a convex combination of other points in the unit ball. This simple fact provides relatively simple formulas in case the underlying norm's unit ball does indeed possess a finite number of extreme points. For example, if the underlying unit ball is a polytope, then the norm of a linear map is the maximum of ∥ T x taken over the extreme points only, and since this a finite set, it is perhaps easier to compute the norm. For example, if X = 1 n , then the extreme points of the unit ball of X are just ± e i , where e i are the standard unit vectors in R n , and so the norm of a linear map is given by
and if we think of T as being represented by an n × n matrix relative to the basis e i , then T e i is the i'th column of the matrix, so we just need to pick the column whose 1 n norm is maximal. As another example, if X = n , then the extreme points of the unit ball are the 2 n sign-vectors, namely ϵ = ( ± 1 , ± 1 , , ± 1 ), and so the norm of a linear map T : n n is the maximum of T ϵ over all sign vectors.The situation for the Euclidean norm gets a bit more complicated, because every point of the unit ball's boundary of the Euclidean norm is an extreme point, so that in principle we have no preferred points on which we can compute the norm. I am not aware of a simple formula that connects the norm of a linear map T : 2 n 2 n to the entries of the matrix. (Here when I say "norm" I mean the norm defined by the general formula above, namely, the maximum of T x over x varying in the underlying unit ball. Of course there are many other norms, for example, the Frobenius norm, for which there is a simple formula in terms of the matrix entries.)Even though there is no simple formula for the norm in terms of the matrix entries, the norm is intimately related to the eigenvalues of the matrix, provided these exist. This comes as no surprise, because eigenvalues measure the stretching in various directions. Thus, if A is a symmetric matrix, then we know that there exists an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of A, hence there exists an orthonormal matrix U such that U A U 1 is a diagonal matrix, and the diagonal consists of the eigenvalues of A. Then we can compute
A = max { A x 2 : x 2 = 1 } = max { U A x 2 : x 2 = 1 } = max { U A U 1 x : x 2 = 1 }
here we used the fact that U preserves lengths as well as the fact that the set of all U 1 x with x 2 = 1 coincides with the Euclidean unit ball. Now the action of the diagonal matrix on any x is simply multiplying its coordinates by the diagonal entries, so we deduce that the norm of A equals
max ( i = 1 n d i 2 x i 2 ) 1 / 2
where the maximum is taken over all x such that x 2 = 1. It is a simple exercise to prove that this is equal to max i | d i |. In other words,
The norm of a symmetric matrix is equal to the maximal absolute value of its eigenvalues.
In general however, there is no simple formula.

We have step-by-step solutions for your answer!

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-06-22
How to determine bounds on one variable in a system of inequalities?
I am interested in the point of 'cross-over' between a generalised harmonic number where the denominator of the summand is raised to a power, and a non-exponential harmonic sum operating on some subset of the natural numbers.
For example, take the generalised harmonic number H x ( k ) = n = 1 x 1 n k , and a harmonic number operating only on odd denominators G x = n = 1 x 1 2 n 1 .
Clearly, there exist values of x,k such that G x < H x ( k ) and values such that H x ( k ) < G x . Thus there exists a value c = G x 0 such that
G x 0 = c < H x 0 ( k ) = n = 1 x 1 n k
and
H x 0 + 2 ( k ) < G x 0 + 2 = c + 1 2 x 0 + 1 + 1 2 x 0 + 3
or
H x 0 + 2 ( k ) c < 1 2 x 0 + 1 + 1 2 x 0 + 3
The values of c , x 0 , k are obviously co-dependent. I am searching for a way to solve for x 0 or at least put bounds on it.
I am interested in how to approach this algebraically rather than numerically. This is a single simple example of G and I want to be able to explore how to solve such problems generally, for whatever pattern of G I choose (provided it's formulable!).
Algebraically, how do I put bounds on x 0 in terms of c , k?
asked 2022-07-01
How to solve this system of linear inequalities?
θ 1 + θ 2 0 2 θ 1 + k θ 2 0 θ 1 + 3 θ 2 0
asked 2022-07-03
Let Δ be an indecomposable root system in a real inner product space E, and suppose that Φ is a simple system of roots in Δ, with respect to an ordering of E. If Φ = { α 1 , , α l }, prove that
α 1 + + α l Δ
I know that any positive root γ may be written as a sum of simple roots, and furthermore that every partial sum is itself a root, but I am unsure if that will help me or not. Any hints to get me started?
asked 2022-06-27
If
x = c y + b z y = a z + c x z = b x + a y
where x , y , z are not all zero, prove that a 2 + b 2 + c 2 + 2 a b c = 1
Further if at least one of a , b , c is a proper fraction, prove that:
(i) a 2 + b 2 + c 2 < 3
(ii) a b c > 1
asked 2022-05-21
Find the number of solutions to
a b 2 1 4 , b c 2 1 4 , c d 2 1 4 , d a 2 1 4
asked 2022-06-21
Let ( A , m ) be a local Noetherian ring and let x 1 , , x d be a system of parameters, i.e. m = ( x 1 , , x d ). Then
dim A / ( x 1 , , x i ) = d i
i = 1 , , d
I know just a few basic facts about dimension theory. I think I can prove the inequality via Krull's Hauptidealsatz in this way: the maximal ideal of A / ( x 1 , , x i ) is
m i := ( x i + 1 ¯ , , x d ¯ ) .
So it must be h t ( m i ) d i.
But how to prove the other inequality? I think I should do it by induction, but I cannot understand how to begin. So, if what I said so far is right, my question is: how can I prove that
dim A / ( x 1 ) d 1 ?
asked 2022-07-10
{ y 2 3 0 16 y 4 96 y 2 0
the solution for the first inequality is y 3 or y 3 and the solution for the second inequality is 6 y 6 . Then for my result the solution for the system is
Then for my result the solution for the system is or 3 y 6