Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I tried to prove that a real antisymmetric matrix can be taken by an orthogonal tranformation to a form:

antisymmetric matrix transofrmation

where the eigenvalues are $\pm i\lambda_1, \pm i\lambda_2 ... $

which is a statement I saw on wikipedia in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_matrix

I also know an antisymmetric matrix can be diagonalized by a unitary transformation, and I found a unitary transformation taking the diagonal matrix to the required form.

So by composing the two transformations (diagonalization, then taking the diagonal matrix to the required form), I'll get a unitary transformation taking the real antisymmetric matrix to another real matrix.

My question is if this transformation must be a real matrix? if so I can deduce that the unitary transformation is in fact an orthogonal transformation.

So is this true?

Is a unitary transformation taking a real matrix to another real matrix necessarily an orthogonal transformation?

EDIT: After receiving in the comment here a counterexample, I'm adding:

Alternatively, if it is not necessarily orthogonal, does there necessarily exist an orthogonal transformation taking the two matrices to each other?

share|improve this question
    
It can be imaginary (imagine that both your real matrices are $I_n$), but there always exists an orthogonal matrix that does the job. –  PseudoNeo Aug 2 '12 at 19:09
    
If $A$ is an orthogonal transformation which diagonalizes $\Sigma$ and $U$ is an arbitrary non-real unitary transformation which leaves $A$ unchanged (e.g. does an arbitrary transformation in its null space only), then obviously $AU$ is a non-orthogonal unitary transformation which diagonalizes $\Sigma$ (because $U$ doesn't change it, and then $A$ diagonalizes it). Therefore what I think you actually want to know is whether it must be an orthogonal matrix up to transformations which don't change $\Sigma$. –  celtschk Aug 2 '12 at 19:17
    
@celtschk yes you are right, I added this to my question –  fiftyeight Aug 2 '12 at 19:19
    
After the edit, the answer is yes: unitarily equivalent real matrices are orthogonally equivalent. But I struggle to find a reference. –  PseudoNeo Aug 2 '12 at 19:23

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Yes. Quoting Halmos's Linear algebra problem book (Solution 160).

“If $A$ and $B$ are real, $U$ is unitary, and $U^*AU = B$, then there exists a real orthogonal $V$ such that $V^*AV = B$.

A surprisingly important tool in the proof is the observation that the unitary equivalence of $A$ and $B$ via $U$ implies the same result for $A^*$ and $B^*$. Indeed, the adjoint of the assumed equation is $U^*A^*U = B^*$.

Write $U$ in terms of its real and imaginary parts $U = E + i F$. It follows from $AU = UB$ that $AE = EB$ and $AF = FB$, and hence that $A(E+\lambda F) = (E+\lambda F)B$ for every scalar $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is real and different from a finite number of troublesome scalars (the ones for which $\det(E+\lambda F) = 0$), the real matrix $S = E + \lambda F$ is invertible, and, of course, has the property that $AS=SB$.

Proceed in the same way from $U^*A^*U = B^*$: deduce that $A^*(E+\lambda F) = (E+\lambda F)B^*$ for all $\lambda$, and, in particular, for the ones for which $E+\lambda F$ is invertible, and infer that $A^*S = SB^*$ (and hence that $S^*A = BS^*$).

Let $S =VP$ be the polar decomposition of $S$ (that theorem works just as well in the real case as in the complex case, so that $V$ and $P$ are real.) Since $$BP^2 = BS^*S = S^*AS = S^*SB = P^2B,$$ so that $P^2$ commutes with $B$, it follows that $P$ commutes with $B$. Since $$AVP = AS = SB = VPB = VBP$$ and $P$ is invertible, it follows that $AV=VB$, and the proof is complete.”

Needless to say, that isn't the shortest path to prove the reduction of antisymmetric matrices...

share|improve this answer
1  
I think you meant $A^*$ in the adjoint of the assumed equation. –  celtschk Aug 2 '12 at 19:45
    
BTW, the first part of the proof shows that two real matrices which are similar over $\mathbb C$ are similar over $\mathbb R$. This result is also good to know. –  PseudoNeo Aug 2 '12 at 19:47
    
thank you, only statement I'm not sure about: $P^2$ commutes with $B$ then $P$ commutes with $B$, is this a general statement or just true for $P$? –  fiftyeight Aug 2 '12 at 20:44

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.