21
$\begingroup$

Let $M_n$ denote the set of complex matrices of order $n$.

It is well known that if $A\in M_n$ has trace zero then $A$ can be written as $A=BC-CB$, where $B,C\in M_n$.

Is it true that every symmetric matrix $S\in M_n$ with trace zero can be written as $S=RR^t-R^tR$, for some $R\in M_n$?

This theorem is true for real matrices. If $S$ is a real symmetric matrix with trace zero and order $n$ then exists a real matrix $R$ of order $n$ such that $S=RR^t-R^tR$.

Is it true for complex matrices?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For complex matrices: by symmetric, do you mean Hermitian? $\endgroup$ May 9 '14 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ No, I mean symmetric $(A=A^t)$. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    May 9 '14 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Omnomnomnom For Hermitian matrices with trace zero, the theorem would be $S=RR^*-R^*R$ for some $R$. This theorem is also true. The "real" problem is for "complex" symmetric matrices. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    May 10 '14 at 0:57
  • $\begingroup$ How to prove the theorem is true for real matrices? Thanks $\endgroup$
    – Clin
    May 20 '14 at 0:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Clin Below you can find the answer for complex matrices. I will try to write the answer for real matrices latter. The proof is simpler. The problem for complex matrices is much more difficult. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    May 20 '14 at 12:43
18
+100
$\begingroup$

OK, here is a complete answer: every traceless and (complex) symmetric matrix $A$ can be written as a commutator of the form $[R,R^T]$ for some matrix $R$. Since comments have been left to my old answer, instead of editing the old answer, I give a new one here. A similar idea to those employed in my answers to other related problems (see q95537 and q251678) is applicable. The key observation is the following:

Lemma. Suppose $A$ is an $n\times n$ traceless complex symmetric matrix.

(a) When $n$ is odd, $A$ is complex orthogonally similar to a matrix whose last diagonal entry is zero.

(b) When $n$ is even, $A$ is complex orthogonally similar to a matrix whose trailing principal $2\times2$ submatrix and leading principal $(n-2)\times(n-2)$ submatrix are both traceless.

Proof of the lemma. Suppose $n$ is odd and none of the zero diagonal entries of $A$ is zero. As $A$ is also traceless, it must have two diagonal entries $x$ and $z$ such that $x\ne\pm z$. If $s$ and $c$ are two complex numbers such that $s^2+c^2=1$, then $$ \pmatrix{c&s\\ -s&c}\pmatrix{x&y\\ y&z}\pmatrix{c&-s\\ s&c} = \pmatrix{\ast&\ast\\ \ast&xs^2-2ysc+zc^2}. $$ So, to prove the lemma for the odd case, it suffices to show that $xs^2-2ysc+zc^2=0$ is solvable in $(s,c)$. Rewrite the equation as $x+(z-x)c^2=2ysc$. Square both sides, we get $x^2 + 2x(z-x)c^2 + (z-x)^2c^4 = 4y^2(c^2-c^4)$ or $$ [(z-x)^2+4y^2]c^4 + [2x(z-x) - 4y^2]c^2 + x^2 = 0.\tag{$\ast$} $$ Since the constant term $x^2$ is nonzero, if the coefficients of $c^4$ and $c^2$ vanish, the equation is insolvable. However, this cannot occur, otherwise we would have $(z-x)^2 = -4y^2 = -2x(z-x)$ and in turn $(z+x)(z-x)=0$, contradicting our assumption that $x\ne\pm z$. Therefore $(\ast)$ is solvable. That is, $A$ is orthogonally similar (via the use of a "complex Givens rotation") to a matrix with a zero diagonal entry. By performing a similarity transform via a permutation matrtix, the result follows.

Now suppose $n$ is even. If $A$ has a pair of diagonal entries $(x,-x)$, the result follows by permutation similarity. On the contrary, if $A$ has have two diagonal entries $x$ and $z$ such that $x\ne\pm z$, then the above argument shows that $A$ is orthogonally similar to a matrix whose last diagonal entry is zero. But then the principal $(n-1)\times(n-1)$ submatrix of $A$ is traceless, symmetric and has odd order. By applying (a) to this submatrix, the result follows. $\square$


Proof of the main statement. We now prove that every complex symmetric matrix $A$ can be written as a commutator of the form $[R,R^T]$. It turns out that the construction of $R$ is fairly simple. Split $R$ into the sum of its complex symmetric part $H$ and complex skew symmetric part $K$. Straightforward calculation shows that $[R,R^T]=2[K,H]$. So the problem boils down to solving $\frac A2=[K,H]$. We will deal with even $n$ and odd $n$ separately.

Case 1: $n$ is even. We will prove by mathematical induction that $\frac A2=[K,H]$ is solvable with a nonsingular $K$. The base case is easy: $$ \underbrace{\pmatrix{x&y\\ y&-x}}_{A/2} = \underbrace{\pmatrix{0&-1\\ 1&0}}_K \underbrace{\pmatrix{y&-\tfrac x2\\ -\tfrac x2&0}}_H - \pmatrix{y&-\tfrac x2\\ -\tfrac x2&0}\pmatrix{0&-1\\ 1&0}. $$ Now, suppose the induction hypothesis holds up to matrices of order $n-2$. Consider a traceless symmetric matrix $A$ of order $n$. $$ \frac A2=\left[\begin{array}{c|c} A_{n-2}&\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf a_1&\mathbf a_2\end{array}\\ \hline \begin{array}{c}\mathbf a_1^T\\ \mathbf a_2^T\end{array}&A_2 \end{array}\right], \quad H=\left[\begin{array}{c|c} H_{n-2}&\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf h_1&\mathbf h_2\end{array}\\ \hline \begin{array}{c}\mathbf h_1^T\\ \mathbf h_2^T\end{array}&H_2 \end{array}\right], \quad K=\left[\begin{array}{c|c} K_{n-2}&0\\ \hline0&K_2\end{array}\right], $$ where $A_{n-2},\,H_{n-2},\,K_{n-2}$ are $(n-2)\times(n-2)$ and $A_2,\,H_2,\,K_2$ are $2\times2$. By our lemma, we may assume that both $A_{n-2}$ and $A_2$ are traceless. As $K_2$ is skew symmetric, $K_2=\alpha Q$ for some complex scalar $\alpha$, where $Q=\pmatrix{0&-1\\ 1&0}$. So, the equation $\frac A2=KH-HK$ is equivalent to the following system of equations: \begin{align} K_{n-2}H_{n-2}-H_{n-2}K_{n-2}&=A_{n-2},\tag{1}\\ K_2H_2-H_2K_2&=A_2,\tag{2}\\ \pmatrix{K_{n-2}&-\alpha I_{n-2}\\ \alpha I_{n-2}&K_{n-2}}\pmatrix{\mathbf h_1\\ \mathbf h_2} &=\pmatrix{\mathbf a_1\\ \mathbf a_2}.\tag{3} \end{align} By induction assumption, $(1)$ and $(2)$ are solvable and both $K_{n-2}, K_2$ can be chosen to be nonsingular. For $(3)$, since $K_{n-2}$ commutes with $\alpha I_{n-2}$, the determinant of the square matrix on the left side of $(3)$ is $\det(K_{n-2}^2+\alpha^2 I_{n-2})$. As $K_2=\alpha Q$, by scaling $\alpha$ and $H_2$ appropriately, the value of $\alpha$ can be chosen such that it is nonzero and $\det(K_{n-2}^2+\alpha^2 I_{n-2})\ne0$. Therefore $(3)$ is also solvable and $K$ is nonsingular.

Case 2: $n$ is odd. The case $n=1$ is trivial. Now suppose $n\ge3$. By our lemma, we may assume that the last diagonal entry of $A$ is zero. Let $$ \frac A2=\left[\begin{array}{c|c}A_{n-1}&\mathbf a\\ \hline\mathbf a^T&0\end{array}\right], \quad H=\left[\begin{array}{c|c}H_{n-1}&\mathbf h\\ \hline\mathbf h^T&0\end{array}\right], \quad K=\left[\begin{array}{c|c}K_{n-1}&0\\ \hline0&0\end{array}\right], $$ where $A_{n-1},H_{n-1},K_{n-1}$ are $(n-1)\times(n-1)$. The equation $\frac A2=KH-HK$ is then equivalent to the system of equations \begin{align} K_{n-1}H_{n-1}-H_{n-1}K_{n-1}&=A_{n-1},\tag{4}\\ K_{n-1}\mathbf h&=\mathbf a\tag{5}. \end{align} By the result for the even case, $(4)$ is solvable with a nonsingular skew symmetric matrix $K_{n-1}$. Hence $(5)$ is also solvable.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. Your solution is beautiful and very creative. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    May 20 '14 at 12:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel Thanks for catching the typos. They are fixed now and I hope none remains. $\endgroup$
    – user1551
    May 20 '14 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ Very creative answer. I like it. +1. $\endgroup$
    – Krokop
    May 30 '14 at 21:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Edwin Thanks for the bounty bonus! I didn't read the bounty conditions carefully and thought it was offered to an alternative answer. $\endgroup$
    – user1551
    Sep 12 '14 at 8:56
6
$\begingroup$

Here you can find an alternative proof for the real symmetric case. I am writting to answer Clin's question. Notice that the approach used by user1551 at his post on May 13 gives a different solution.

Let $S$ be a real symmetric matrix of order k and trace zero. Let $S=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_iv_iv_i^t$ be a spectral decomposition of $S$ with $\lambda_1\geq\lambda_2\geq\ldots\geq\lambda_n$ $(\lambda_i\neq 0)$(Edit: and $v_1,\dots,v_n$ orthonormal).

Define $\beta_i=\lambda_1+\dots+\lambda_i$. Notice that $\beta_n=0$.

Now, $\beta_i>0$ for $i<n$, otherwise $\beta_{i+1}<0$ and $\beta_n<0$.

Define the matrices $V_{k\times n-1}, W_{k\times n-1}$ using the vectors $v_i$ as columns: $V=(v_1,\dots,v_{n-1})$ and $W=(v_2,\dots,v_{n})$. Notice that $V^tV=W^tW=Id_{n-1}$.

Define the diagonal matrix $D_{n-1\times n-1}$ with $\beta_1,\dots,\beta_{n-1}$ in the diagonal.

Notice that $S=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_iv_iv_i^t=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\beta_iv_iv_i^t-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\beta_iv_{i+1}v_{i+1}^t$. Therefore, $S=VDV^t-WDW^t$.

Finally $S=VD^{\frac{1}{2}}W^tWD^{\frac{1}{2}}V^t-WD^{\frac{1}{2}}V^tVD^{\frac{1}{2}}W^t=RR^t-R^tR$, where $R=VD^{\frac{1}{2}}W^t$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ really grateful for your answer $\endgroup$
    – Clin
    May 20 '14 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @user1551 Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    May 21 '14 at 5:22

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.