3
$\begingroup$

Let $\text{Inv}: GL_n(\mathbb{R})\to GL_n(\mathbb{R})$ be defined by $\text{Inv}(X)= X^{-1}.$ Problem $33$ in Chapter $5$ of Pugh's Real Mathematical Analysis states: "Observe that $Y = \text{Inv}(X)$ solves the implicit function problem $F(X, Y)-I =0$ where $F(X, Y)= XY.$ Assume it is known that $\text{Inv}$ is smooth and use the chain rule to derive from this equation a formula for the derivative of $\text{Inv}.$"

My attempt: Differentiating both sides of the given equation wrt $X$ at an arbitrary $A \in M_{n}(\mathbb{R})$and using the chain rule for the $LHS$ we get $\left(\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial X}\right)_{A}+ \left(\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial Y}\right)_AY'(A) =0.$ My problem is in evaluating the partials of $F$ wrt $X$ and $Y.$

For $n=2,$ I wrote $X= \begin{pmatrix} x_{11} &x_{12}\\x_{21}&x_{22}\end{pmatrix}$ and $Y= \begin{pmatrix} y_{11} &y_{12}\\y_{21}&y_{22}\end{pmatrix}$ so that $F(X, Y) = XY =\begin{pmatrix} x_{11}y_{11}+x_{12}y_{21} &x_{11}y_{12}+x_{12}y_{22}\\x_{21}y_{11}+x_{22}y_{21}&x_{21}{y_{12}+x_{22}y_{22}}\end{pmatrix}$ then $\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial X} = \begin{pmatrix} Y^{T} &0_{2\times2}\\0_{2\times2}&Y^{T}\end{pmatrix} $ and $\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial Y} = X \otimes I_{2\times 2}$ where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. For $\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial X}$ to act on $A$, we must write $A$ as a $4 \times 1$ column vector $\begin{pmatrix} a_{11}&a_{12}&a_{21}&a_{22}\end{pmatrix}^{T}$ so that rewriting $\left(\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial X}\right)_{A} = \dfrac{\partial F}{\partial X}(A)$ as a $2\times 2$ matrix we get $AY$ and rewriting $\left(\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial Y}\right)_{A} = \dfrac{\partial F}{\partial Y}(A)$ we get $XA$. Plugging back in the above equation and using the fact that $Y= X^{-1}$ we get $AY'(A) = -X^{-1}AX^{-1}.$

My question: what have I done wrong that caused me to get stuck with an extra $A$ on the LHS? (From first principles I have proven that correct answer is $Y'(A) = -X^{-1}AX^{-1})$ but I am unable to get that formula from this approach. I am unable to pinpoint what I have made a mistake in. Is it the inconsistent treatment of $A$? I'd appreciate any pointers or hints. Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

It always helps to write everything down in index notation (summation convention, not writing the sums).

$$F_{ij}=X_{ik}Y_{kj}$$ $$\frac{\partial F_{ij}}{\partial X_{ab}}=\delta_{ia}\delta_{kb}Y_{kj}=\delta_{ia}Y_{bj}$$ Here, $Y$ was treated as a constant and derivative of a matrix with respect to itself is just $1$ for same components and $0$ otherwise.

Analogously: $$\frac{\partial F_{ij}}{\partial Y_{ab}}=X_{ia}\delta_{jb}$$

Observe that we are differentiating with respect to $X_{ab}$: different indices than above. This gives a four-index object that only yields a matrix when applied to $A_{ab}$. So, the entire object acts on something with $ab$ indices, and you are not mixing $X$ with $A$ too soon.

Everything at once:

$$\left(\frac{\partial F_{ij}}{\partial X_{ab}}\right)+ \left(\frac{\partial F_{ij}}{\partial Y_{pq}}\right) \left(\frac{\partial Y_{pq}}{\partial X_{ab}}\right)=0$$ This is simple chain rule. Observe that the last parentheses only becomes $Y'(A)$ when applied to $A$. So now we apply this entire object to $A$: $$\left(\frac{\partial F_{ij}}{\partial X_{ab}}\right)A_{ab}+ \left(\frac{\partial F_{ij}}{\partial Y_{pq}}\right) \underbrace{\left(\frac{\partial Y_{pq}}{\partial X_{ab}}\right)A_{ab}}_{Y'_{pq}(A)}=0$$

Put in what we derived before:

$$\delta_{ia}Y_{bj}A_{ab}+ X_{ip}\delta_{jq} Y'_{pq}(A)=0$$ Use the Kronecker delta operators and put first term across:

$$X_{ip} Y'_{pj}(A)=-Y_{bj}A_{ib}$$ $$Y'_{pj}(A)=-X^{-1}_{pi}X^{-1}_{bj}A_{ib}=-X^{-1}_{pi}A_{ib}X^{-1}_{bj}=-(X^{-1}AX^{-1})_{pj}$$ From next-to-last to last line, we multiplied by the inverse of $X$ from the left (this reverses the indices), and then reordered terms so that the inner indices match, so we can go back to the indexless notation.

TLDR: $\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y}\right)$ should not be evaluated at $A$, because in the chain rule, each operator still only operates on the thing on its right. $Y'$ is applied to $A$, but $\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y}\right)$ is appled to $Y'$, not to $A$.

$\endgroup$

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.