3
$\begingroup$

Assume $A$ is a real (non-symmetric) positive definite matrix, that is, $$ x^T A x > 0 $$ for all real non-zero real $x$. It is easy to prove that the eigenvalues of $A$ have positive real part.

Conversely, assume $A$ is a (non-symmetric) real matrix, whose eigenvalues have positive real part. It does not necessarily follow that $A$ is positive definite. Nonetheless, does there exist a similar matrix $B$ which is positive definite? More precisely, does there exist an invertible matrix $P$ such that $P^{-1} A P$ is positive definite?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "Positive real part" - they are real, since $x^TAx=\lambda |x|^2>0$ implies $\lambda$ is real. $\endgroup$ – A.Γ. Jul 26 '18 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ @A.Γ. $x^TAx > 0$ only has to hold for real $x$ in this context. If $\lambda$ is a complex eigenvalue, then there is no real vector $x$ which is an eigenvector. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Jul 26 '18 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Omnomnomnom Indeed, I see it now. $\endgroup$ – A.Γ. Jul 26 '18 at 23:53
  • $\begingroup$ @RideTheWavelet Again, this is not true since the similar matrix may have non-real eigenvalues while still being positive definite (as in the definition above). $\endgroup$ – Nao Jul 27 '18 at 7:04
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Nao, I think instinct took over when I saw the phrase "positive definite." $\endgroup$ – RideTheWavelet Jul 27 '18 at 7:39
1
$\begingroup$

The fact that $U\in M_n(\mathbb{R})$ satisfies for every $x$ s.t. $||x||=1$, $x^TUx>0$, is denoted by $U>0$; if moreover $U$ is symmetric, then the notation is $U\succ 0$.

Recall $(*)$: $U>0$ IFF $U+U^T\succ 0$.

$\textbf{Proposition}.$ Let $A\in M_n(\mathbb{R})$ s.t. for every $\lambda\in spectrum(A)$, $Re(\lambda)>0$. Then there is $B\in M_n(\mathbb{R})$ s.t. $A,B$ are similar over $\mathbb{R}$ and $B>0$.

$\textbf{Proof}.$ Let $spectrum(A)=(\nu_j),(\lambda_j \pm i\mu_j)_j$ where $\nu_j>0,\lambda_j>0,\mu_j\not= 0$. $A$ is similar over $\mathbb{R}$ to a block diagonal matrix where each block is

i) either in the form $\nu_j I_r+J_r$ where $J_r$ is a $r\times r$ nilpotent Jordan matrix

ii) or in the form (for $r=6$) $\begin{pmatrix}U&I_2&0_2\\0_2&U&I_2\\0_2&0_2&U\end{pmatrix}$ where $U=\begin{pmatrix}\lambda_j&\mu_j\\-\mu_j&\lambda_j\end{pmatrix}$.

Then (cf. $(*)$), it suffices to prove the required result for the two above matrices.

Case i). $\nu I+J$ is similar to $B=\nu I+\epsilon J$ ($\epsilon >0$) and $B+B^T=2\nu I+\epsilon (J+J^T)\succ 0$ (as $2\nu I$) for $\epsilon$ small enough.

Case ii). Our matrix $\tilde{A}$ (with $\lambda +i\mu$ and $r=6$)

$(**)$ is similar to $B=\begin{pmatrix}U&\epsilon I_2&0_2\\0_2&U&\epsilon I_2\\0_2&0_2&U\end{pmatrix}$

and $B+B^T=diag(2\lambda I_2,2\lambda I_2,2\lambda I_2)+\epsilon K$ which is $\succ 0$ (as $diag(2\lambda I_2,2\lambda I_2,2\lambda I_2)$ for $\epsilon$ small enough. $\square$

EDIT. About $(**)$. Let $\mathcal{A}=\tilde{A}-(\lambda+i\mu)I_6$, $\mathcal{B}=B-(\lambda+i\mu)I_6$, $e_1=[-i,1,0,0,0,0]^T,e_2=[0,0,-i,1,0,0]^T,e_3=[0,0,0,0,-i,1]^T$. Then $\ker(\mathcal{A})=\ker(\mathcal{B})=span(e_1)$,$\ker(\mathcal{A}^2)=\ker(\mathcal{B}^2)=span(e_1,e_2)$,$\ker(\mathcal{A}^3)=\ker(\mathcal{B}^3)=span(e_1,e_2,e_3)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you give a reference to why the Jordan blocks are given by (i) or (ii), and why similarity with an epsilon perturbation holds? I'm not sure I understand the argument. $\endgroup$ – Nao Jul 31 '18 at 9:06
  • $\begingroup$ Firstly, don't say thanks for the answer. Secondly for i), see wiki and for ii), its your business (it seems to me that you have not done much work so far). $\endgroup$ – loup blanc Jul 31 '18 at 10:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I had the impression that saying "thanks" was not recommended, as suggested by virtually all comments I've seen so far. I also think it's a little rude and I usually can't help it, as for the answer above. Am I in the wrong impression? In any case: thanks. You are equally welcome to be a little more polite, as I am doing my best in understanding the argument and working through this problem myself. Wikipedia is the first place I looked, but the article on Jordan normal form does not seem to invoke matrices like $U$ in your case (ii). $\endgroup$ – Nao Aug 1 '18 at 8:14
  • $\begingroup$ I just read the @RideTheWavelet 's answer. I wrote too fast. He is right; it is necessary to use an orthonormal change of basis. In a moment, I'll delete my post. $\endgroup$ – loup blanc Aug 3 '18 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ Why is it necessary? Where is the flaw in your answer? $\endgroup$ – Nao Aug 3 '18 at 16:00
0
$\begingroup$

Here's a special case in which a complete answer may be given, and hopefully this leads to better understanding in the general case. We know that there is a real Jordan canonical form available for any real matrix. Suppose that the matrix leading to the Jordan canonical form of $A$ is real orthogonal. Then $A=O^{T}JO,$ where $J$ is the real Jordan canonical form, which means that $x^{T}Ax=(Ox)^{T}J(Ox)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.$ Thus, the positive definiteness of $A$ is equivalent to that of $J$ in this case. Now if we inspect the Jordan blocks for some eigenvalue, we have four cases:

  1. $[\lambda]$, $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$, $\lambda>0;$
  2. $\begin{bmatrix}\lambda&1&\cdots&0\\0&\lambda&\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0&\cdots&\lambda\end{bmatrix}$, $\lambda\in\mathbb{R},\lambda>0$ ($1$s only on the first superdiagonal);
  3. $\begin{bmatrix}a&b\\-b&a\end{bmatrix}$, $a,b\in\mathbb{R},$ $a>0$;
  4. $\begin{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}a&b\\-b&a\end{bmatrix}&I&\cdots&0\\0&\begin{bmatrix}a&b\\-b&a\end{bmatrix}&\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0&\cdots&\begin{bmatrix}a&b\\-b&a\end{bmatrix}\end{bmatrix}$, $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$, $a>0$ ($I$s only on the first superdiagonal).

It should be clear that $J$ is positive definite if and only if all blocks are of types (1) and (3).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. I don't think this answers the question, since there may be another matrix similar to $A$ which is positive definite, even if it fails for $J$. Also, the assumption that $O$ is orthogonal seems superficial since $A$ is not assumed positive definite, so equivalence between positive definiteness of $A$ and $J$ does not help...? $\endgroup$ – Nao Jul 27 '18 at 8:34

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.