4
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be a real symmetric matrix of order $n$ with eigenvalues $\mu_1\ge \mu_2,\ldots, \mu_{n}$. $B=\begin{bmatrix} x&x&x&x&x \end{bmatrix}$, where $x$ is non zero column vector in $R^n$. Construct a new matrix: $$C=\begin{bmatrix} A&B\\B^T &0 \end{bmatrix}$$ Removing four zeros of $C$ (due to identical columns) arrange the remaining eigenvalues as $\lambda_1\ge \lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_{n+1}$.

How to show that $\lambda_i\ge\mu_i\ge\lambda_{i+1}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,n$.

I know that removing $4$ identical columns, we are left with matrix of order $n+1$ and there this result hold due to interlacing. But eigenvalues of that matrix and of matrix $C$ are different. So , how can I conclude here?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
+100
$\begingroup$

You almost solved your problem. The only thing that you forgot to do was a change a basis.

Let $e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_{n+5}$ denote the canonical basis of ${\mathbb R}^{n+5}$. The identical columns in $C$ force the subspace $Z$ spanned by $e_{k}-e_{n+1} (n+2\leq k \leq n+5)$ to be included in the kernel of $C$. We construct an orthonormal basis in which $Z$ will be spanned by the last, rightmost vectors (so we can concentrate on the interesting leftmost part).

Formally, define a new basis $F=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_{n+5})$ by $f_k=e_k$ for $k\leq n$, and

$$ \begin{array}{lcl} f_{n+1} &=& \frac{e_{n+1}+e_{n+2}+e_{n+3}+e_{n+4}+e_{n+5}}{\sqrt{5}} \\ f_{n+2} &=& \frac{e_{n+1}+e_{n+2}+e_{n+3}+e_{n+4}-4e_{n+5}}{\sqrt{20}} \\ f_{n+3} &=& \frac{e_{n+1}+e_{n+2}+e_{n+3}-3e_{n+4}}{\sqrt{12}} \\ f_{n+4} &=& \frac{e_{n+1}+e_{n+2}-2e_{n+3}}{\sqrt{6}} \\ f_{n+5} &=& \frac{e_{n+1}-e_{n+2}}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \end{array} $$

Then $F$ is orthonormal. In this new basis, $A$ has not changed while $C$ has become

$$ C'=\begin{bmatrix} D&0\\0 &0 \end{bmatrix} $$

where $D$ is the $(n+1)\times(n+1)$ matrix

$$ D=\begin{bmatrix} A&\sqrt{5}x\\\sqrt{5}x &0 \end{bmatrix} $$

The eigenvalues of $D$ are exactly the $\lambda_1\ge \lambda_2,\ldots \geq \lambda_{n+1}$. Then the usual interlacing property you mention in your post applies.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Further, can we say something about strict interlacing? Can we restrict $A$ such that there is strict interlacing? $\endgroup$ May 2, 2016 at 6:49
  • $\begingroup$ It is likely that the interlacing will be strict in $C$ if it is already strict in $A$ and $0$ is not an eigenvalue for $A$. $\endgroup$ May 2, 2016 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean that if all eigenvalues of $A$ i.e $\mu_i$'s are simple and none of them is zero, then $\lambda_i>\mu_i>\lambda_{i+1}$? $\endgroup$ May 2, 2016 at 7:36
  • $\begingroup$ We can say Interlace of eigenvalues of $A$ with $C$. But what does interlacing in $A$ itself mean? $\endgroup$ May 2, 2016 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ You’re right, I shouldn't have sad "interlacing in $A$" but rather simple eigenvalues for $A$. And yes, I presume that $\lambda_i > \mu_i > \lambda_{i+1}$ in this case (though I don't know how to prove it). $\endgroup$ May 2, 2016 at 8:17

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.