Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

1.) Let $A$ be a nonsingular square matrix.

  • a.) Prove that the product of the singular values of $A$ equals the absolute value of its determinant: $\sigma_1\sigma_2...\sigma_n=|detA|$.

  • b.) Does the sum equal the absolute value of the trace? And a matrix whose determinant is very small is ill-conditioned?

  • c.) Show that if $|detA|< 10^{-k}$, then its minimal singular value satisfies $\sigma_n <10^{-\frac{k}{n}}$. Can you construct an ill-conditioned matrix with $detA = 1$?

2.) Let A be a square matrix. Prove that its maximum eigenvalue is smaller than its maximal singular value.

My attempt:

a.) I know that the equation for singular values is $A = U \dot\ E \dot\ V$ so $|det(A)| = |det(U) \dot\ det(E) \dot\ det(V)| = |\pm1 \dot\ $ (product of singular values) | = product of singular values. Is that correct?

b.) True for the first part. For the second part, do they mean a matrix can have ill-conditioned determinant if its determinant is small? Not sure what they are asking.

c.) I do not know how to do.

2.) Not sure how to do because I thought that the singular value should be smaller than the maximum eigenvalue?

share|cite|improve this question
Should there be an absolute value around product of singular values in (a)? – StuartHa Nov 26 '12 at 4:28
@Stuart: singular values are non-negative. – Martin Argerami Nov 26 '12 at 4:30
up vote 4 down vote accepted

a) is correct

b) No, it's not true. If $A=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}$, then the sum of the singular values is $2$, while the absolute value of the trace is zero.

To discuss whether your matrix is ill-conditioned, you need to say which norm you are talking about. Assuming we are talking about the operator norm (=largest singular value), if the determinant is small it means that some singular values are small; then the inverse will have big singular values and the condition number will be large.

c) You have $\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_n<10^{-k}$; if all $\sigma_j\geq 10^{-k/n}$, then $$|\det A|=\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_n\geq(10^{-k/n})^n=10^{-k};$$ so at least one singular value is less than $10^{-k/n}$.

2) This is not well phrased, because they can be equal. The maximum singular value is $\|A^TA\|^{1/2}$. Now let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $A$ with unit eigenvector $v$. Then $$ |\lambda|=\|\lambda v\|=\|Av\|=(v^TA^TAv)^{1/2}\leq\|A^TA\|^{1/2}(v^Tv)^{1/2}=\|A^TA\|^{1/2}. $$ So every eigenvalue is smaller in absolute value than the biggest singular value.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much for clearing that up for me, Martin! – diimension Nov 26 '12 at 5:28
You are very welcome. – Martin Argerami Nov 26 '12 at 5:31

For $1(c)$, make use of the fact that $\sigma_1 \geq \sigma_2 \geq \cdots \geq \sigma_n$. Hence, we get that $$\sigma_n^n \leq \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \cdots \sigma_n = \det(A) < 10^{-k}$$ Hence, we get that $$\sigma_n < 10^{-k/n}$$ The maximal eigen value is given by \begin{align} \left \vert \lambda_{\max} \right \vert & = \max_{\Vert x \Vert_2 = 1} \left \vert x^T A x \right \vert\\ & = \underbrace{\max_{\Vert x \Vert_2 = 1} \left \vert x^T U \Sigma V^T x \right \vert \leq \max_{\Vert x \Vert_2 = 1} \Vert x^T U \Vert_2 \Vert \Sigma \Vert_2 \max_{\Vert x \Vert_2 = 1} \Vert V^T x \Vert_2}_{\text{By sub-multiplicativity of matrix norm}}\\ & = 1 \times \Vert \Sigma \Vert_2 \times 1 = \sigma_1 \end{align}

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much, Marvis! – diimension Nov 26 '12 at 5:28

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.