2
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ and $B$ be Hermitian matrices.

  • If $AB=BA$, we know that $e^{A+B} = e^A e^B$.
  • In this paper, the author showed that $\text{Tr } e^{A+B} = \text{Tr } e^A e^B$ iff. $AB=BA$.

As such, $e^{A+B} = e^A e^B$ is equivalent to $\text{Tr } e^{A+B} = \text{Tr } e^A e^B$ in the context of Hermitian matrices.

My question is how we can derive the commutation relation between $A$ and $B$ directly from $e^{A+B}=e^A e^B$ without bringing in the Golden-Thompson inequality (as in the paper I linked). Since the condition $e^{A+B} = e^A e^B$ has a simpler form than that involving the trace, I think there should be some way.

Edit: rephrase the question

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand... $a \implies b$ and $b \implies c$ imply that $a \implies c$. So if the results you mention are true, so is the conclusion. $\endgroup$
    – mathcounterexamples.net
    Apr 10, 2021 at 11:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So the next question is how we can derive the commutation relation between $A$ and $B$ directly from $e^{A+B} = e^A e^B$ without bringing in the Golden-Thompson inequality (as in the paper I linked). The condition $e^{A+B} = e^A e^B$ has a simpler form than that involving the trace, so I think there should be some way. $\endgroup$
    – Minh Nguyen
    Apr 10, 2021 at 12:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would suggest that you rephrase your question in that direction then. $\endgroup$
    – mathcounterexamples.net
    Apr 10, 2021 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ I edited the question $\endgroup$
    – Minh Nguyen
    Apr 10, 2021 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know that commuting hermitian matrices are simultaneously diagonalizable? $\endgroup$
    – PhoemueX
    Apr 10, 2021 at 13:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

The idea here is $A+B$ is Hermitian and the exponential map preserves Hermicity. Taking the conjugate transpose of each side, we have
$e^Ae^B = e^{A+B} = \big(e^{A+B}\big)^*=\big(e^B\big)^*\big(e^A\big)^*=e^Be^A$
so $e^A$ and $e^B$ commute.

Now call on a lemma twice:
for Hermitian $X,Y$
$e^XY= Ye^X$
iff $XY=YX$
proof sketch: the same unitary matrix $U$ that simultaneously diaogonalizes $e^X$ and $Y$ must diagonalize $X$ as well since all are Hermitian. And the same argument also runs backwards. (Underlying idea: the exponential map is injective on reals and Hermitian matrices are diagonalizable with real spectrum. So $e^X \mathbf v = \sigma \cdot \mathbf v\implies X\mathbf v = \log(\sigma)\cdot \mathbf v$ and of course $X \mathbf v = \lambda \cdot \mathbf v\implies e^X\mathbf v = e^{\lambda}\cdot \mathbf v$)

after applying the lemma once, with $Y:=e^B$, $X=A$, we know $Ae^B = e^BA$
and a 2nd application of the lemma, with $Y:=A$ and $X:= B$, tells us $AB = BA$

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Could you elaborate more on $e^X \mathbf v = \sigma \cdot \mathbf v\implies X\mathbf v = \log(\sigma)\cdot \mathbf v$? It's not clear to me. $\endgroup$
    – Minh Nguyen
    Apr 11, 2021 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ $X$ is Hermitian so diagonalizable with d distinct eigenvalues thus $\mathbb C^n=W_1 \oplus ... \oplus W_d$, i.e. the vector space is a direct sum of Xs eigenspaces with $\mathbf w_i \in W_i$, compute the same thing two different ways $\mathbf 0 \neq \mathbf v=\sum_{i=1}^d \alpha_i \mathbf w_i$ and $ \sigma \mathbf v =e^X\mathbf v=e^X\sum_{i=1}^d \alpha_i \mathbf w_i=\sum_{i=1}^d e^{\lambda_i} \alpha_i \mathbf w_i$ $\implies \mathbf 0=\sum_{i=1}^d (\sigma - e^{\lambda_i}) \alpha_i \mathbf w_i$ $\implies (\sigma - e^{\lambda_i}) \alpha_i=0$ for all i by linear independence. $\endgroup$
    – user8675309
    Apr 11, 2021 at 4:45
  • $\begingroup$ But at most one $(\sigma - e^{\lambda_i}) \neq 0$ since $\lambda_i$ are distinct, real and the exponential function is injective on reals. Thus at least $d-1$ of the $\alpha_i=0$ and at most $d-1$ of the $\alpha_i=0$ because $\mathbf v\neq \mathbf 0$. $\implies\mathbf v\propto\mathbf w_k$ for some $k\in \big\{1,2,...,d\big\}$ (and of course $\lambda_k = \log(\sigma))$. $\endgroup$
    – user8675309
    Apr 11, 2021 at 4:45
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I think it's correct, with just a small typo: at most one $(\sigma - e^{\lambda_i}) = 0$. $\endgroup$
    – Minh Nguyen
    Apr 11, 2021 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ Yes indeed. Unfortunately a typo like this in the form of a comment can't be edited outside the original 5 minute window. I may end up dropping this explanation (sans typo) into the posting. $\endgroup$
    – user8675309
    Apr 11, 2021 at 17:10

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.