Results 1 to 8 of 8

Math Help - Matrix Banach Space

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7

    Matrix Banach Space

    Let M_n(R) be the n x n matrices over the reals R. Define a norm || || on M_n(R) by ||A||= sum of absolute values of all the entries of A. Further define a new norm || ||* by ||A||* = sup{||AX||/||X||, ||X||!=0}.
    Show that

    1. M_n(R) under || ||* is complete.
    2. If ||A||<1, then I-A is nonsingular, where I is the identity matrix.
    3. The set of nonsingular matrices in M_n(R) is open.
    4. Find ||B||*, where B is 2x2 and b_11=1, b_12=2, b_21=3, b_22=4.

    There is a series of over 10 questions on the norm || ||. I've solved most of them but I've been stuck on (have no clue for) these ones above for a week.

    I'd appreciate any hints.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    Let M_n(R) be the n x n matrices over the reals R. Define a norm || || on M_n(R) by ||A||= sum of absolute values of all the entries of A. Further define a new norm || ||* by ||A||* = sup{||AX||/||X||, ||X||!=0}.
    Show that

    1. M_n(R) under || ||* is complete.
    All finite-dimensional vector spaces over R are complete.

    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    2. If ||A||<1, then I-A is nonsingular, where I is the identity matrix.
    I think the proof for this needs to come in two stages. (i) show that \|A\|^*\leqslant\|A\|; (ii) show that if \|A\|^*<1 then I-A is nonsingular.

    I don't like that asterisk notation for the operator norm, so I'll write \|A\|_{\text{op}} instead of \|A\|^*; and I'll use \|A\|_{\Sigma} for the sum of the absolute values of all the entries of A.

    To show (i), use the fact that \|A\|_{\text{op}}^2 = \|A^{\textsc t}A\|_{\text{op}} ( A^{\textsc t} is the transpose of A), and check that \|A^{\textsc t}A\|_{\Sigma}\leqslant \|A\|_{\Sigma}^2. Then A^{\textsc t}A is a positive matrix, so its operator norm is equal to its largest eigenvalue. This is less than (or equal to) the sum of the eigenvalues, which in turn is the sum of its diagonal elements and therefore less than the sum of the absolute values of all its elements.

    Putting all that together, you see that \|A\|_{\text{op}}^2 = \|A^{\textsc t}A\|_{\text{op}} \leqslant \|A^{\textsc t}A\|_{\Sigma}\leqslant \|A\|_{\Sigma}^2.

    For (ii), use the Neumann series (I-A)^{-1} = I+A+A^2+A^3+\ldots, which converges if \|A\|_{\text{op}}<1.

    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    3. The set of nonsingular matrices in M_n(R) is open.
    Suppose that A is invertible and that \|B-A\|_{\text{op}}<\|A^{-1}\|_{\text{op}}^{-1}. If C=B-A then B = A+C = A(I+A^{-1}C). This is the product of two invertible matrices (because \|A^{-1}C\|_{\text{op}}<1) and is therefore invertible. So any matrix sufficiently close to A is invertible, and that shows that the set of invertible matrices is open.
    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    4. Find ||B||*, where B is 2x2 and b_11=1, b_12=2, b_21=3, b_22=4.
    \|B\|_{\text{op}}^2 is the larger of the two eigenvalues of B^{\textsc t}B, which you can easily calculate. I get \|B\|_{\text{op}} = \sqrt{15 + \sqrt{221}}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7
    This was very helpful. But notice that in my definition of || ||_op, X refers to a matrix, so || ||_op is not exactly the usual operator norm. So I'm not sure if some of the results you've used for the operator norm still holds for my || ||_op norm. Further, there are a few "advanced" results that I'm not supposed to use in my proof. So for each of the 4 questions:

    1. Is this a consequence of the fact that all norms on R^n are equivalent? (I'm not supposed to use the theorem you stated.)

    2. I've shown part i) in a earlier problem, but I don't see how i) contributes to part ii).

    3. Many thanks for this one.

    4. I believe this is a known result for the usual operator norm. I'm not sure if it holds for my || ||_op.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    This was very helpful. But notice that in my definition of || ||_op, X refers to a matrix, so || ||_op is not exactly the usual operator norm.
    Oh, I see. I was assuming that X was a column vector in R^n (with the euclidean norm). Your norm is an operator norm, but as you say it is not the usual operator norm. It is the norm that M_n(R) has as an algebra of operators acting on M_n(R) itself (with the Σ-norm).

    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    So I'm not sure if some of the results you've used for the operator norm still holds for my || ||_op norm.
    Nor am I! I was using results for operator norms over Hilbert spaces, whereas your norm is an operator norm over a Banach space.

    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    1. Is this a consequence of the fact that all norms on R^n are equivalent?
    Yes (because M_n(R) can be regarded as R^(n^2)).

    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    2. I've shown part i) in a earlier problem, but I don't see how i) contributes to part ii).
    My proof of 2. was unnecessarily complicated. The essence is to use the completeness of M_n(R) in the \|\,.\,\|_{\Sigma} norm to deduce that the series I+A+A^2+A^3+\ldots converges. For this, you need to show that \|A^k\|_{\Sigma}\leqslant\|A\|_{\Sigma}^k (for k=1,2,3,...). This follows from the fact that \|\,.\,\|_{\Sigma} is an algebra norm (in other words \|AB\|_{\Sigma} \leqslant \|A\|_{\Sigma}\|B\|_{\Sigma}), which you can prove by direct computation without involving any other norm.

    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    4. I believe this is a known result for the usual operator norm. I'm not sure if it holds for my || ||_op.
    It certainly doesn't. What you want to do is to maximise the Σ-norm of BX subject to the Σ-norm of X being at most 1. If X = \begin{bmatrix}w&x\\y&z\end{bmatrix} then BX = \begin{bmatrix}1&2\\3&4\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}w&x\\y&z\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}w+2y&x+2z\\3w+4y&3x+4z\end{bmatrix}. So you want to maximise |w+2y| + |x+2z| + |3w+4y| + |3x+4z| subject to |w|+|x|+|y|+|z|\leqslant1. That looks quite unpleasant. But suppose we cheat a bit and assume that w, x, y and z are all positive. Then the problem becomes: maximise 4w+4x+6y+6z subject to w+x+y+z=1, and the maximum is easily seen to be 6. I would guess that this is the correct answer to the problem, but I don't offhand see how to justify that (without making the cheating assumption).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    It certainly doesn't. What you want to do is to maximise the Σ-norm of BX subject to the Σ-norm of X being at most 1. If X = \begin{bmatrix}w&x\\y&z\end{bmatrix} then BX = \begin{bmatrix}1&2\\3&4\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}w&x\\y&z\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}w+2y&x+2z\\3w+4y&3x+4z\end{bmatrix}. So you want to maximise |w+2y| + |x+2z| + |3w+4y| + |3x+4z| subject to |w|+|x|+|y|+|z|\leqslant1. That looks quite unpleasant. But suppose we cheat a bit and assume that w, x, y and z are all positive. Then the problem becomes: maximise 4w+4x+6y+6z subject to w+x+y+z=1, and the maximum is easily seen to be 6. I would guess that this is the correct answer to the problem, but I don't offhand see how to justify that (without making the cheating assumption).
    Why are you using the constraint that |w|+|x|+|y|+|z|<=1 ?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    Why are you using the constraint that |w|+|x|+|y|+|z|<=1 ?
    By definition, \|B\|_{\text{op}} = \sup\{\|BX\|_{\Sigma}/\|X\|_{\Sigma}:X\ne0\}. By linearity, this is the same as \sup\{\|BX\|_{\Sigma}:\|X\|_{\Sigma}\leqslant1\}. (You can even replace " \leqslant1" by "=1" in that last expression.) And \|X\|_{\Sigma} = |w|+|x|+|y|+|z|.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7
    I have one more question. How would you show that

    ||AB||_op <= ||A||_op x ||B||_op

    Many thanks.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by nubmathie View Post
    I have one more question. How would you show that

    ||AB||_op <= ||A||_op x ||B||_op
    First note that \|AX\|_{\Sigma}\leqslant\|A\|_{\text{op}}\|X\|_{\S  igma} (from the definition of the op-norm). Then \|ABX\|_{\Sigma}\leqslant\|A\|_{\text{op}}\|BX\|_{  \Sigma} \leqslant\|A\|_{\text{op}}\|B\|_{\text{op}}\|X\|_{  \Sigma}. Now take the sup over \|X\|_{\Sigma}\leqslant1 to get \|A\|_{\text{op}}\leqslant\|A\|_{\text{op}}\|B\|_{  \text{op}}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Banach space & Hilbert space
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 24th 2011, 02:06 PM
  2. Banach space with infinite vector space basis?
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 24th 2011, 07:23 PM
  3. banach space
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 24th 2010, 05:45 PM
  4. Banach space
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 6th 2010, 01:22 PM
  5. Banach space
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 26th 2010, 01:18 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum