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.

Let $A=[a_{ij}]\in M_{n}$ be a Hermitian matrix with eigenvalues $\lambda_{1}(A)\geq\cdots \geq\lambda_{n}(A)$. Suppose $1\leq r \leq n-1$.

How to show that if $\Sigma_{i=1}^{r}a_{ii} =\Sigma_{i=1}^{r}\lambda_{i}(A)$ then $A=\begin{pmatrix} A_{1} & 0 \\ 0 & A_{2} \\ \end{pmatrix}$ where $A_{1}\in M_{r}$ is Hermitian and has eigenvalues $\lambda_{1}(A)\geq\cdots \geq\lambda_{r}(A)$?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

There may be a quick way to see this without appealing to any general theorems, but here is a useful perspective on the problem that is rather general. All of what I am about to do appears in textbooks and papers, but I do not have any references on hand at the moment, so I am reconstructing the proofs on the fly.

I will write $t(C)$ for the usual trace (sum of diagonal entries) of a matrix $C$ and $\langle x, y\rangle = \sum_{j=1}^n x_j y_j^*$ for the usual inner product in $\mathbb{C}^n$. It helps to know that $t$ is unitarily invariant, so that for any orthonormal basis $v_1, \dots, v_n$ of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and any $C \in M_n$ one has that $t(C) = \sum_{j=1}^n \langle C v_j, v_j\rangle$.

First an observation that I think is often attributed to Weyl: that if $A \in M_n$ is a self-adjoint matrix with eigenvalues $\lambda_1 \geq \dots \geq \lambda_n$, then for any $1 \leq r < n$ $$ \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j = \sup \{t(A P): P \in M_n, P = P^* = P^2, \operatorname{rank} P = r\}. $$ To see this, fix $P \in M_n$ with $P = P^* = P^2$ and rank $r$ and let $e_1, \dots, e_n$ be an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{C}^n$ satisfying $Ae_j = \lambda_j e_j$ for all $1 \leq j \leq n$. Then $$ \begin{align} t(AP) & = \sum_{j=1}^n \langle AP e_j, e_j\rangle = \sum_{j=1}^n \langle P e_j, A e_j\rangle = \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j \langle P e_j, e_j\rangle \\ & = \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j \|P e_j\|^2 + \sum_{j > r} \lambda_j \|P e_j\|^2 \\ & \leq \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j \|P e_j\|^2 + \sum_{j > r} \lambda_{r+1} \|P e_j\|^2 \\ & = \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j \|P e_j\|^2 + \lambda_{r+1} \sum_{j > r} \langle P e_j, e_j\rangle \\ & = \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j \|P e_j\|^2 + \lambda_{r+1} \left(t(P) - \sum_{j=1}^r \langle P e_j, e_j\rangle \right) \\ & = \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j \|P e_j\|^2 + \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_{r+1} (1 - \langle P e_j, e_j\rangle) \\ & \leq \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j \|P e_j\|^2 + \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j (1 - \langle P e_j, e_j\rangle) \\ & = \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j, \end{align} $$ proving the observation.

We now make a second observation: if $P$ is a rank $r$ projection for which equality holds in the above, then $P$ must commute with $A$.

In proving this it helps to let $E$ denote the orthogonal projection onto the span of $\{e_1, \dots, e_r\}$ (note that $E$ commutes with $A$).

Looking at the first $\leq$ above we see that equality holding forces $$ \sum_{j > r} (\lambda_{r+1} - \lambda_j) \|P e_j\|^2 = 0 $$ which since the numbers $\lambda_{r+1} - \lambda_j$ and $\|P e_j\|^2$ are nonnegative forces $$ (\lambda_{r+1} - \lambda_j) \|P e_j\|^2 = 0, \qquad j > r. $$ Suppose there is no $j > r$ with $\lambda_{r+1} = \lambda_j$. In this case we conclude from the above that $\|P e_j\|^2 = 0$ for all $j > r$ and hence $P e_j = 0$ for all $j > r$, implying that the range of $P$ is contained in the orthocomplement of the span of $\{e_j: j > r\}$, which is the range of $E$. But the range of $P$ has dimension $r$ by hypothesis, and we conclude that the range of $P$ is precisely the range of $E$, and so $P = E$, and hence $P$ commutes with $A$.

Looking at the second $\leq$ above we see that equality holding also forces $$ \sum_{j=1}^r (\lambda_j - \lambda_{r+1}) (1 - \langle P e_j, e_j\rangle) = 0. $$ Since $\lambda_j - \lambda_{r + 1} \geq 0$ and $1 - \langle P e_j, e_j\rangle = \|(I - P) e_j\|^2 \geq 0$ we conclude that $$ (\lambda_j - \lambda_{r+1}) \|(I - P) e_j\|^2 = 0, \qquad 1 \leq j \leq r. $$ Suppose there is no $1 \leq j \leq r$ with $\lambda_j = \lambda_{r+1}$ then we deduce that $\|(I - P) e_j\|^2 = 0$ for all $1 \leq j \leq r$ and hence that the range of $I - P$ is contained in the orthocomplement of the span of $\{e_1, \dots, e_r\}$, which is precisely the range of $I - E$. But again a comparison of dimensions shows that $I - P = I- E$ and hence $P = E$. So again $P$ commutes with $A$.

If we are not in one of the cases where have been able to conclude that $P = E$, then letting $J$ be the largest integer $j$ satisfying $r \leq j \leq n$ and $\lambda_{r+1} = \lambda_j$, and let $K$ be the smallest integer $k$ satisfying $1 \leq k \leq r$ and $\lambda_j = \lambda_{r+1}$, and letting $\lambda$ denote the value of $\lambda_{r+1}$ for short, we see that $\lambda_j = \lambda$ holds for all $K \leq j \leq J$, and arguments similar to the ones just given show that $P e_j = 0$ for all $j > J$ and that $(I - P) e_j = 0$ for all $j < K$. This implies that $P e_j = e_j$ for all $j < K$ and hence that the span of the set of $e_j$ for which $j < K$ or $j > J$ is invariant under $P$. Since $P$ is an orthogonal projection it follows that the orthocomplement of this set, namely the span of $\{e_j: K \leq j \leq J\}$, is also invariant under $P$. Thus with respect to the basis $\{e_1, \dots, e_n\}$ of $\mathbb{C}^n$, the projection $P$ takes the form of a block diagonal matrix $P = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & P' & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ where the upper left $I$ is a (possibly empty) $(K-1) \times (K-1)$ identity block and the lower right $0$ is a (possibly empty) $(n-J) \times (n - J)$ block, and $P'$ is a $(J - K + 1) \times (J-K + 1)$ projection. Now the matrix $A$ takes the block form $\begin{pmatrix} D & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda I & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & D' \end{pmatrix}$ where $D$ and $D'$ are diagonal matrices of the appropriate sizes and $I$ denotes the $(J-K+1) \times (J - K + 1)$ identity matrix. Since whatever the projection $P'$ is it must commute with $\lambda I$ it follows that $PA = AP$ in this case also.

Note that whenever $\lambda_{r+1}$ is not a repeated eigenvalue (so that "the span of the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest $r$ eigenvalues" is uniquely determined), we are in one of the first two nice cases above, and $P = E$ is actually forced to be the projection onto the span of the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest $r$ eigenvalues. This happens in particular if $A$ has no repeated eigenvalues.

So, in your question, fixing $1 \leq r < n$, the hypothesis is that the orthogonal projection $P$ onto the span of $e_1, \dots, e_r$ attains the supremum on the right hand side of $$ \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j = \sup \{t(A P): P \in M_n, P = P^* = P^2, \operatorname{rank} P = r\}, $$ so by the above discussion it must commute with $A$. This gives you the decomposition of $A$ into an $r \times r$ block $A_1$ and a $(n - r) \times (n - r)$ block $A_2$. Since the set of eigenvalues of $A$ is the union of the sets of eigenvalues of $A_1$ and $A_2$ and $t(A) = t(A_1) + t(A_2)$ I think it is easy to see that the eigenvalues of $A_1$ must be $\lambda_1, \dots \lambda_r$ and those of $A_2$ must be the rest. Otherwise $t(A_1)$ will be too small.

share|improve this answer

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.