v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization
v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization
542 APPENDIX A. LINEAR ALGEBRA A.2 Semidefiniteness: domain of test The most fundamental necessary, sufficient, and definitive test for positive semidefiniteness of matrix A ∈ R n×n is: [177,1] x T Ax ≥ 0 for each and every x ∈ R n such that ‖x‖ = 1 (1334) Traditionally, authors demand evaluation over broader domain; namely, over all x ∈ R n which is sufficient but unnecessary. Indeed, that standard textbook requirement is far over-reaching because if x T Ax is nonnegative for particular x = x p , then it is nonnegative for any αx p where α∈ R . Thus, only normalized x in R n need be evaluated. Many authors add the further requirement that the domain be complex; the broadest domain. By so doing, only Hermitian matrices (A H = A where superscript H denotes conjugate transpose) A.2 are admitted to the set of positive semidefinite matrices (1337); an unnecessary prohibitive condition. A.2.1 Symmetry versus semidefiniteness We call (1334) the most fundamental test of positive semidefiniteness. Yet some authors instead say, for real A and complex domain ({x∈ C n }), the complex test x H Ax≥0 is most fundamental. That complex broadening of the domain of test causes nonsymmetric real matrices to be excluded from the set of positive semidefinite matrices. Yet admitting nonsymmetric real matrices or not is a matter of preference A.3 unless that complex test is adopted, as we shall now explain. Any real square matrix A has a representation in terms of its symmetric and antisymmetric parts; id est, A = (A +AT ) 2 + (A −AT ) 2 (46) Because, for all real A , the antisymmetric part vanishes under real test, x T(A −AT ) 2 x = 0 (1335) A.2 Hermitian symmetry is the complex analogue; the real part of a Hermitian matrix is symmetric while its imaginary part is antisymmetric. A Hermitian matrix has real eigenvalues and real main diagonal. A.3 Golub & Van Loan [134,4.2.2], for example, admit nonsymmetric real matrices.
A.2. SEMIDEFINITENESS: DOMAIN OF TEST 543 only the symmetric part of A , (A +A T )/2, has a role determining positive semidefiniteness. Hence the oft-made presumption that only symmetric matrices may be positive semidefinite is, of course, erroneous under (1334). Because eigenvalue-signs of a symmetric matrix translate unequivocally to its semidefiniteness, the eigenvalues that determine semidefiniteness are always those of the symmetrized matrix. (A.3) For that reason, and because symmetric (or Hermitian) matrices must have real eigenvalues, the convention adopted in the literature is that semidefinite matrices are synonymous with symmetric semidefinite matrices. Certainly misleading under (1334), that presumption is typically bolstered with compelling examples from the physical sciences where symmetric matrices occur within the mathematical exposition of natural phenomena. A.4 [118,52] Perhaps a better explanation of this pervasive presumption of symmetry comes from Horn & Johnson [176,7.1] whose perspective A.5 is the complex matrix, thus necessitating the complex domain of test throughout their treatise. They explain, if A∈C n×n ...and if x H Ax is real for all x ∈ C n , then A is Hermitian. Thus, the assumption that A is Hermitian is not necessary in the definition of positive definiteness. It is customary, however. Their comment is best explained by noting, the real part of x H Ax comes from the Hermitian part (A +A H )/2 of A ; rather, Re(x H Ax) = x HA +AH x (1336) 2 x H Ax ∈ R ⇔ A H = A (1337) because the imaginary part of x H Ax comes from the anti-Hermitian part (A −A H )/2 ; Im(x H Ax) = x HA −AH x (1338) 2 that vanishes for nonzero x if and only if A = A H . So the Hermitian symmetry assumption is unnecessary, according to Horn & Johnson, not A.4 Symmetric matrices are certainly pervasive in the our chosen subject as well. A.5 A totally complex perspective is not necessarily more advantageous. The positive semidefinite cone, for example, is not self-dual (2.13.5) in the ambient space of Hermitian matrices. [170,II]
- Page 491 and 492: 6.9. THEOREM OF THE ALTERNATIVE 491
- Page 493 and 494: 6.10. POSTSCRIPT 493 When D is an E
- Page 495 and 496: Chapter 7 Proximity problems In sum
- Page 497 and 498: 497 project on the subspace, then p
- Page 499 and 500: 499 H S N h 0 EDM N K = S N h ∩ R
- Page 501 and 502: 501 7.0.3 Problem approach Problems
- Page 503 and 504: 7.1. FIRST PREVALENT PROBLEM: 503 f
- Page 505 and 506: 7.1. FIRST PREVALENT PROBLEM: 505 7
- Page 507 and 508: 7.1. FIRST PREVALENT PROBLEM: 507 d
- Page 509 and 510: 7.1. FIRST PREVALENT PROBLEM: 509 7
- Page 511 and 512: 7.1. FIRST PREVALENT PROBLEM: 511 w
- Page 513 and 514: 7.1. FIRST PREVALENT PROBLEM: 513 T
- Page 515 and 516: 7.2. SECOND PREVALENT PROBLEM: 515
- Page 517 and 518: 7.2. SECOND PREVALENT PROBLEM: 517
- Page 519 and 520: 7.2. SECOND PREVALENT PROBLEM: 519
- Page 521 and 522: 7.2. SECOND PREVALENT PROBLEM: 521
- Page 523 and 524: 7.2. SECOND PREVALENT PROBLEM: 523
- Page 525 and 526: 7.3. THIRD PREVALENT PROBLEM: 525 g
- Page 527 and 528: 7.3. THIRD PREVALENT PROBLEM: 527 w
- Page 529 and 530: 7.3. THIRD PREVALENT PROBLEM: 529 7
- Page 531 and 532: 7.3. THIRD PREVALENT PROBLEM: 531 7
- Page 533 and 534: 7.3. THIRD PREVALENT PROBLEM: 533 O
- Page 535 and 536: 7.4. CONCLUSION 535 The rank constr
- Page 537 and 538: Appendix A Linear algebra A.1 Main-
- Page 539 and 540: A.1. MAIN-DIAGONAL δ OPERATOR, λ
- Page 541: A.1. MAIN-DIAGONAL δ OPERATOR, λ
- Page 545 and 546: A.3. PROPER STATEMENTS 545 (AB) T
- Page 547 and 548: A.3. PROPER STATEMENTS 547 A.3.1 Se
- Page 549 and 550: A.3. PROPER STATEMENTS 549 For A di
- Page 551 and 552: A.3. PROPER STATEMENTS 551 Diagonal
- Page 553 and 554: A.3. PROPER STATEMENTS 553 For A,B
- Page 555 and 556: A.3. PROPER STATEMENTS 555 A.3.1.0.
- Page 557 and 558: A.4. SCHUR COMPLEMENT 557 A.4 Schur
- Page 559 and 560: A.4. SCHUR COMPLEMENT 559 A.4.0.0.2
- Page 561 and 562: A.5. EIGEN DECOMPOSITION 561 When B
- Page 563 and 564: A.5. EIGEN DECOMPOSITION 563 dim N(
- Page 565 and 566: A.6. SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION,
- Page 567 and 568: A.6. SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION,
- Page 569 and 570: A.7. ZEROS 569 Given symmetric matr
- Page 571 and 572: A.7. ZEROS 571 (TRANSPOSE.) Likewis
- Page 573 and 574: A.7. ZEROS 573 For X,A∈ S M + [31
- Page 575 and 576: A.7. ZEROS 575 A.7.5.0.1 Propositio
- Page 577 and 578: Appendix B Simple matrices Mathemat
- Page 579 and 580: B.1. RANK-ONE MATRIX (DYAD) 579 R(v
- Page 581 and 582: B.1. RANK-ONE MATRIX (DYAD) 581 ran
- Page 583 and 584: B.2. DOUBLET 583 R([u v ]) R(Π)= R
- Page 585 and 586: B.3. ELEMENTARY MATRIX 585 If λ
- Page 587 and 588: B.4. AUXILIARY V -MATRICES 587 the
- Page 589 and 590: B.4. AUXILIARY V -MATRICES 589 18.
- Page 591 and 592: B.5. ORTHOGONAL MATRIX 591 B.5 Orth
A.2. SEMIDEFINITENESS: DOMAIN OF TEST 543<br />
only the symmetric part of A , (A +A T )/2, has a role determining positive<br />
semidefiniteness. Hence the oft-made presumption that only symmetric<br />
matrices may be positive semidefinite is, of course, erroneous under (1334).<br />
Because eigenvalue-signs of a symmetric matrix translate unequivocally to<br />
its semidefiniteness, the eigenvalues that determine semidefiniteness are<br />
always those of the symmetrized matrix. (A.3) For that reason, and<br />
because symmetric (or Hermitian) matrices must have real eigenvalues,<br />
the convention adopted in the literature is that semidefinite matrices are<br />
synonymous with symmetric semidefinite matrices. Certainly misleading<br />
under (1334), that presumption is typically bolstered with compelling<br />
examples from the physical sciences where symmetric matrices occur within<br />
the mathematical exposition of natural phenomena. A.4 [118,52]<br />
Perhaps a better explanation of this pervasive presumption of symmetry<br />
comes from Horn & Johnson [176,7.1] whose perspective A.5 is the complex<br />
matrix, thus necessitating the complex domain of test throughout their<br />
treatise. They explain, if A∈C n×n<br />
...and if x H Ax is real for all x ∈ C n , then A is Hermitian.<br />
Thus, the assumption that A is Hermitian is not necessary in the<br />
definition of positive definiteness. It is customary, however.<br />
Their comment is best explained by noting, the real part of x H Ax comes<br />
from the Hermitian part (A +A H )/2 of A ;<br />
rather,<br />
Re(x H Ax) = x<br />
HA +AH<br />
x (1336)<br />
2<br />
x H Ax ∈ R ⇔ A H = A (1337)<br />
because the imaginary part of x H Ax comes from the anti-Hermitian part<br />
(A −A H )/2 ;<br />
Im(x H Ax) = x<br />
HA −AH<br />
x (1338)<br />
2<br />
that vanishes for nonzero x if and only if A = A H . So the Hermitian<br />
symmetry assumption is unnecessary, according to Horn & Johnson, not<br />
A.4 Symmetric matrices are certainly pervasive in the our chosen subject as well.<br />
A.5 A totally complex perspective is not necessarily more advantageous. The positive<br />
semidefinite cone, for example, is not self-dual (2.13.5) in the ambient space of Hermitian<br />
matrices. [170,II]