Results 1 to 11 of 11

Math Help - A inequality of determinant

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66

    Wink A inequality of determinant

    Assume A is a n \times m real matrix, B is a n \times (n - m) real matrix, show that:
    det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&A'B\\B'A&B'B\end{arr  ay}\right) \leq det(A'A)det(B'B)
    Last edited by Xingyuan; June 3rd 2009 at 07:12 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Xingyuan View Post
    Assume A is a n \times m real matrix, B is a n \times (n - m) real matrix, show that:
    det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&B'A\\A'B&B'B\end{arr  ay}\right) \leq det(A'A)det(B'B)
    are you sure you wrote the question correctly?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    Yes,I am sure.

    the left of the equation is not correct, because it is not a square matrix,so the determinant can't define on it .It's my careless,thanks NonCommAlg very much !!!
    Last edited by Xingyuan; June 3rd 2009 at 07:15 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Xingyuan View Post
    Yes,I am sure.
    well, i'm not sure about that! the reason that asked you that question is that just looking at the dimensions of your matrices shows that the matrix in the LHS of your inequality basically can

    never be a square matrix. here's why: we need both A'A and B'B be square matrices because otherwise their determinants (look at the RHS of your inequality) wouldn't be defined. thus A'

    and B' have to be m \times n and (n-m)\times n respectively. but then B'A would be (n-m) \times m and A'B would be m \times (n-m). now see that the matrix you gave us in the LHS just doesn't

    make sense! are you sure the matrix in LHS is not this one: \begin{pmatrix}A'A & A'B \\ B'A & B'B \end{pmatrix} ?

    by the way your last post (linear algebra) had problems too. next time, maybe nobody will even try to fix your mistakes! so you need to make sure that you've written your question correctly

    before submitting it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    I am so sorry ,you are right ,the left matrix is \left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&A'B\\B'A&B'B\end{array}  \right).otherwise the determinant can't define on it ....I am very sorry for my careless,and I promise I will never make these mistakes. and thanks for your help....

    My way to solve it(but failed):

    because:

    \left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&A'B\\B'A&B'B\end{array}  \right) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}A'\\B'\end{array}\right)\le  ft(\begin{array}{cc}A&B\end{array}\right)

    so we have:

    det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&A'B\\B'A&B'B\end{arr  ay}\right) = det(\left(\begin{array}{cc}A'\\B'\end{array}\right  )\left(\begin{array}{cc}A&B\end{array}\right))

    by Binet-Cauchy Formular

    we have:

    det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&A'B\\B'A&B'B\end{arr  ay}\right) = (det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A&B\end{array}\right))^  2

    so to prove the problem we only need to prove:

    (det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A&B\end{array}\right))^  2 \leq det(A'A)det(B'B)

    and i can't go any further

    another way :

    use Laplace theory ,the right of the eqution can be witten as :

    det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&0\\0&B'B\end{array}\  right)

    so if we prove:

    det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&A'B\\B'A&B'B\end{arr  ay}\right) \leq det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A'A&0\\0&B'B\end{array}\  right)

    the problem will be solve.

    but i can't do anymore about it.....

    At last ,thanks for your help ....and i will never make any mistakes like this...Trust Me
    Last edited by Xingyuan; June 3rd 2009 at 07:43 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    7
    here's a counter-example for the claim in your problem: let n = 2, \ m = 1 and A=B=\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}, \ A'=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, \ B'= \begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}. then A'A=A'B=1, \ B'A=B'B=-1.

    so we have \begin{vmatrix} A'A & A'B \\ B'A & B'B \end{vmatrix}=\begin{vmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ -1 & -1 \end{vmatrix}=0> -1=\det(A'A) \det(B'B). so there's still something wrong with your problem!
    Last edited by NonCommAlg; June 4th 2009 at 09:36 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    If B = \begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix},then

    B' = \begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}.
    B' \not=\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}

    so it is not a contradiction.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Xingyuan View Post
    If B = \begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix},then

    B' = \begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}.
    B' \not=\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}

    so it is not a contradiction.
    so by A',B' you meant A^T,B^T ?? i thought A',B' were just some other matrices! you see, you should define non-standard notations in your question!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    Yes , B'means B^T,the transpose of B. In my text book, use this " ' "notation to show a transpose of a matrix....next time ,if i use any notation in my problem. i will explain it clearly... Trust Me ....
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    7
    ok, i haven't finished the proof of the inequality but i think this is the idea that will prove it eventually:

    let \ell=\binom{n}{m}=\binom{n}{n-m}. suppose u_1, \cdots , u_n are the rows of A and v_1, \cdots , v_n are the rows of B. by Binet-Cauchy Formula we have \det(A^TA)=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} (\det A_i)^2, where A_i are all

    m \times m minor cofactors of A. call this (1). similarly: \det(B^TB)=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} (\det B_i)^2, where B_i are all (n-m) \times (n-m) minor cofactors of B. call this (2).

    for any 1 \leq i \leq \binom{n}{m}, we index A_i and B_i somehow that if the rows of A_i are u_{j_1}, \cdots , u_{j_m}, then the rows of B_i will be v_{k_1}, \cdots , v_{k_{n-m}}, where \{j_1, \cdots , j_m \} \cap \{k_1, \cdots , k_{n-m} \} = \emptyset.

    thus by (1), (2) and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have: \det(A^TA) \det(B^TB) \geq \left(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \det A_i \det B_i \right)^2 call this (3). clearly we can replace any \det A_i in (1) by -\det(A_i) because

    (\det A_i)^2=(-\det A_i)^2. so, we can replace any \det A_i \det B_i in (3) by -\det A_i \det B_i. so, using what you already proved, we only need to prove that for suitable choices of \pm we have:

    \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \pm \det A_i \det B_i = \det \begin{pmatrix} A & B \end{pmatrix}. this identity looks correct to me but i have no proof for it! haha
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    By Laplace Theorem, and pick index 1 < 2 < 3 < \ldots  < m .
    we have:

    \det \begin{pmatrix} A&B \end{pmatrix} = \sum_{1 \leq j_{1} < j_{2} < \ldots < j_{m} \leq n} \det \begin{pmatrix} A&B \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}   j_{1} \ldots j_{m} \\ 1 \ldots m<br />
\end{pmatrix} \delta_{j_{1} j_{2} \ldots j_{n}}^{1 2 \ldots n} \det \begin{pmatrix} A&B \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}   j_{m+1} \ldots j_{n} \\ m+1 \ldots n<br />
\end{pmatrix}

    then for suitable choices of \pm, such that equal the correspondence \delta_{j_{1} j_{2} \ldots j_{n}}^{1 2 \ldots n}

    then we have :

    \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \pm \det A_i \det B_i = \sum_{1 \leq j_{1} < j_{2} < \ldots < j_{m} \leq n} \det \begin{pmatrix} A&B \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}   j_{1} \ldots j_{m} \\ 1 \ldots m<br />
\end{pmatrix} \delta_{j_{1} j_{2} \ldots j_{n}}^{1 2 \ldots n} \det \begin{pmatrix} A&B \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}   j_{m+1} \ldots j_{n} \\ m+1 \ldots n<br />
\end{pmatrix}

    using what we have already proved, we get the conclusion....

    OK, Now I explain the notation that i have used .
    the first is:

     \begin{pmatrix} A&B \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}   j_{1} \ldots j_{m} \\ 1 \ldots m<br />
\end{pmatrix}

    this means the sub-matrix of matrix \begin{pmatrix} A&B \end{pmatrix}.we got it by choosing the j_{1},\ldots , j_{m} rows, and 1,\ldots ,m columns..and the sub-matrix is make up by the cross element of the rows and columns that mentioned above.

    the second is :

    \delta_{j_{1} j_{2} \ldots j_{n}}^{1 2 \ldots n}

    the above expression equal 1 if j_{1} j_{2} \ldots j_{n} through even times transposition become 1 2 \ldots n.equal -1 if through odd times...

    hehe, i don't know whether i explain my idea clearly....Hasta La Vista,baby(the problem...)

    Thank NonCommAlg very much !!!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 11th 2011, 09:20 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 12th 2010, 02:16 PM
  3. Determinant
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 10th 2009, 07:24 PM
  4. Determinant
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 17th 2009, 11:17 AM
  5. determinant
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 20th 2007, 06:14 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum