1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand Man-Duen Choi's remark 3 in his paper Completely Positive Linear Maps on Complex Matrices:

For a linear map $\Phi : \mathcal{M}_{n} \to \mathcal{M}_{m}$, it is obvious that $\Phi$ is hermitian-preserving iff $(\Phi(E_{jk}))_{jk}$ is hermitian. Endowed with the natural ordering induced by $\mathcal{M}_{n}(\mathcal{M}_{m})$, the class of hermitian-preserving maps is a partially ordered vector space over the reals, while the class of completely positive linear maps is just the positive cone.

Notation: $\mathcal{M}_{n}$ denotes the collection of $n \times n$ complex matrices. $E_{jk} \in \mathcal{M}_{n}$ is the $n \times n$ matrix with a $1$ in the $j,k$ component, and $0$ for all other entries. $\mathcal{M}_{n}(\mathcal{M}_{m})=\mathcal{M}_{m} \otimes \mathcal{M}_{n}$ denotes the collection of $n \times n$ block matrices with $m \times m$ matrices as entries. Alternatively, elements of $\mathcal{M}_{n}(\mathcal{M}_{m})$ can be regarded as an $nm \times nm$ matrix with numerical entries.

My difficulty with understanding the remark stems from the statement about being endowed with a natural ordering...

What does it mean for the class of hermitian-preserving maps to be endowed with the natural ordering induced by $\mathcal{M}_{n}(\mathcal{M}_{m})$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The natural ordering is $\Phi\geq \Psi$ iff $(\Phi(E_{jk}))_{jk}-(\Psi(E_{jk}))_{jk}\in M_{nm}$ is a positive semidefinite Hermitian matrix. Notice that $\Phi\geq 0$ iff $\Phi$ is a completely positive map.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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