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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose $G$ is a Hermitian $n \times n$ matrix and $A$ is some $n \times n$ matrix over complex numbers. such that $G-A^H G A$ is positive-definite.

Then can we show that $G$ is invertible?

Also, can we conclude anything about the eigenvalues of the matrix $A$ in terms of the eigenvalues of $G$ (for instance, relate the number of positive eigenvalues of $G$ with the eigenvalues of $A$ of norm less than 1)?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Since $G-A^*GA$ is Hermitian and positive definite, we can find $m>0$ such that $$\forall x\in\Bbb C^n,\quad x^*Gx-(Ax)^*G(Ax)\geq m\lVert x\rVert^2.$$ This gives, by induction, that for all $x\in\Bbb C^n$, $$(A^px)^*G(A^px)\leq x^*Gx-m\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}\lVert A^jx\rVert^2.$$ The initial assumption gives that $G-(A^p)^*GA^p\geq 0$ and that each eigenvalue of $A$ is of modulus $<1$. Therefore, using Jordan form of $A$, we get that $G\geq 0$. We get $$m\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}\lVert A^jx\rVert^2\leq x^*Gx,$$ and the wanted result.

share|cite|improve this answer
I am not clear about the conclusion that each eigenvalue of $A$ is less than $1$, and the statement about the Jordan form. Could you please clarify these? – BharatRam Sep 15 '12 at 12:27
It's unfortunately not necessarily true for example when $G=-I$ and $A=2I$. So my argument works if $G\geq 0$, but it can be deduced of the others. I conclude I need to think more about the problem. – Davide Giraudo Sep 15 '12 at 17:01

Let $G$ be non invertible matrix. Then singular value decomposition of $G$, $G=USV^T$ will have at least one singular value $\sigma_n=0$.

Now consider the singluar value decomposition of $G-A^HGA=U^{'}S^{'}V^{'T}$ where we have $\sigma^{'}_i\neq 0$ for all $i$.

As $G$ has singularity, $A^HGA$ shouldnt such that $G-A^HGA$ is positive definite. From this, we can write the SVD of $A^HGA$ as




which has $\sigma_n=0$. Therefore $G$ can not be non-invertible.

share|cite|improve this answer
So you have decomposed $G$, $A$, and $A^H G A$ into their singular value decompositions.I couldn't follow your conclusions. If possible, could you please clarify it more? – BharatRam Sep 2 '12 at 4:11
Yes I can. If $G$ is invertible it shouldnt have any singular value equals to $0$. Likewise if it is noninvertible it should have at least one singular value (that is the smallest one) equals to zero. Now I assume that $G$ is non-invertible and check if this provides a contradiction with the restrcition that $G-A^HGA>0$. If it does then I can conclude that $G$ should be invertible. Now I check $G-A^HGA$ with $G$ has singular value decomposition with at least one singular value equals to $0$. Since $G-A^HGA$ is positive definite I also know that it shouldnt have any singular value equals to $0$ – Seyhmus Güngören Sep 2 '12 at 9:32
Now I must force $G-A^HGA$ to have no singular value equals to zero, given $G$ has at least one singular value equals to zero. As I showed that this is impossible, I can conclude that if $G$ is non-invertible then $G-A^HGA$ can not be positive definite as positive definite matix doesnt allow any zero singular value. Therefore I finally conclude that $G$ should be positive definite such that $G-A^HGA>0$ – Seyhmus Güngören Sep 2 '12 at 9:38

$G-A^TGA$ is positive definite, so $$x^T(G-A^TGA)x>0$$ or $$x^TGx>x^TA^TGAx$$ for any $x \in \mathbb{C}^n$.

Then suppose $G$ is not invertible, then there exists $y \in \mathbb{C}^n$ such that $Gy=0$, then we have $$y^TA^TGAy<y^TGy=0$$

Since $A$ is arbitrary, the left side of the above inequality means $G$ is negative definite, which is contradict to the assumption that $G$ is not invertible.

So $G$ is invertible.

share|cite|improve this answer
$A$ is some fixed matrix such that $G-A^H G A$ is positive definite. I did not follow how you concluded that $G$ is negative definite. – BharatRam Sep 2 '12 at 1:34
In your question, it says $A$ is any n∗n matrix over complex numbers – chaohuang Sep 2 '12 at 1:37
Well, it still has to satisfy the positive definiteness condition of $G-A^H G A$. It cannot be just any matrix. I shall edit it if thats ambiguous. – BharatRam Sep 2 '12 at 1:41

Another solution would be to show that $G$ does not admit the eigenvalue $0$. (Then G $is$ invertible because it is hermitien). This can be shown by contradiction: Let $x$ be the eigenvector to the eigenvalue $0$ of $G$. Then $x^t(G-A^tGA)x^t>0$ gives (since $Gx=0$):


Now you can argue in the same way as chaohuang.

share|cite|improve this answer
How do you proceed with that? chaohuang's proof is incorrect. If G has negative eigenvalues, your hypothesis will certainly be true anyway. How does it prove that G is invertible? – BharatRam Sep 9 '12 at 11:25
Yes, chaohuang is of course false, I did not read it properly. So in fact this does not work properly how I tried. – Lucien Sep 10 '12 at 12:11

Your Answer


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.