v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
454 CHAPTER 5. EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE MATRIX5.8.2.1.1 Shore. The columns of Ξ r V N Ξ c hold a basis for N(1 T )when Ξ r and Ξ c are permutation matrices. In other words, any permutationof the rows or columns of V N leaves its range and nullspace unchanged;id est, R(Ξ r V N Ξ c )= R(V N )= N(1 T ) (898). Hence, two distinct matrixinequalities can be equivalent tests of the positive semidefiniteness of D onR(V N ) ; id est, −VN TDV N ≽ 0 ⇔ −(Ξ r V N Ξ c ) T D(Ξ r V N Ξ c )≽0. By properlychoosing permutation matrices, 5.39 the leading principal submatrix T Ξ ∈ S 2of −(Ξ r V N Ξ c ) T D(Ξ r V N Ξ c ) may be loaded with the entries of D needed totest any particular triangle inequality (similarly to (1053)-(1061)). Becauseall the triangle inequalities can be individually tested using a test equivalentto the lone matrix inequality −VN TDV N ≽0, it logically follows that the lonematrix inequality tests all those triangle inequalities simultaneously. Weconclude that −VN TDV N ≽0 is a sufficient test for the fourth property of theEuclidean metric, triangle inequality.5.8.2.2 Strict triangle inequalityWithout exception, all the inequalities in (1061) and (1062) can be madestrict while their corresponding implications remain true. The thenstrict inequality (1061a) or (1062) may be interpreted as a strict triangleinequality under which collinear arrangement of points is not allowed.[223,24/6, p.322] Hence by similar reasoning, −VN TDV N ≻ 0 is a sufficienttest of all the strict triangle inequalities; id est,δ(D) = 0D T = D−V T N DV N ≻ 0⎫⎬⎭ ⇒ √ d ij < √ d ik + √ d kj , i≠j ≠k (1064)5.8.3 −V T N DV N nestingFrom (1058) observe that T =−VN TDV N | N←3 . In fact, for D ∈ EDM N ,the leading principal submatrices of −VN TDV N form a nested sequence (byinclusion) whose members are individually positive semidefinite [159] [202][331] and have the same form as T ; videlicet, 5.405.39 To individually test triangle inequality | √ d ik − √ d kj | ≤ √ d ij ≤ √ d ik + √ d kj forparticular i,k,j, set Ξ r (i,1)= Ξ r (k,2)= Ξ r (j,3)=1 and Ξ c = I .5.40 −V DV | N←1 = 0 ∈ S 0 + (B.4.1)
5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX CRITERIA 455−V T N DV N | N←1 = [ ∅ ] (o)−V T N DV N | N←2 = [d 12 ] ∈ S + (a)−V T N DV N | N←3 =−V T N DV N | N←4 =[⎡⎢⎣1d 12 (d ]2 12+d 13 −d 23 )1(d 2 12+d 13 −d 23 ) d 13= T ∈ S 2 + (b)1d 12 (d 12 12+d 13 −d 23 ) (d ⎤2 12+d 14 −d 24 )1(d 12 12+d 13 −d 23 ) d 13 (d 2 13+d 14 −d 34 )1(d 12 12+d 14 −d 24 ) (d 2 13+d 14 −d 34 ) d 14⎥⎦ (c).−VN TDV N | N←i =.−VN TDV N =⎡⎣⎡⎣−VN TDV ⎤N | N←i−1 ν(i)⎦ ∈ S i−1ν(i) T + (d)d 1i−VN TDV ⎤N | N←N−1 ν(N)⎦ ∈ S N−1ν(N) T + (e)d 1N (1065)where⎡ν(i) 1 ⎢2 ⎣⎤d 12 +d 1i −d 2id 13 +d 1i −d 3i⎥. ⎦ ∈ Ri−2 , i > 2 (1066)d 1,i−1 +d 1i −d i−1,iHence, the leading principal submatrices of EDM D must also be EDMs. 5.41Bordered symmetric matrices in the form (1065d) are known to haveintertwined [331,6.4] (or interlaced [202,4.3] [328,IV.4.1]) eigenvalues;(confer5.11.1) that means, for the particular submatrices (1065a) and(1065b),5.41 In fact, each and every principal submatrix of an EDM D is another EDM. [235,4.1]
- Page 403 and 404: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 403The collecti
- Page 405 and 406: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 4055.4.2 Gram-f
- Page 407 and 408: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 407We provide a
- Page 409 and 410: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 4095.4.2.3.1 Ex
- Page 411 and 412: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 411is the fact:
- Page 413 and 414: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 413Figure 120:
- Page 415 and 416: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 415is found fro
- Page 417 and 418: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 417one less dim
- Page 419 and 420: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 419equality con
- Page 421 and 422: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 421How much dis
- Page 423 and 424: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 423105ˇx 4ˇx
- Page 425 and 426: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 425now implicit
- Page 427 and 428: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 427by translate
- Page 429 and 430: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 429Crippen & Ha
- Page 431 and 432: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 431where ([√t
- Page 433 and 434: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 433because (A.3
- Page 435 and 436: 5.5. INVARIANCE 4355.5.1.0.1 Exampl
- Page 437 and 438: 5.5. INVARIANCE 437x 2 x 2x 3 x 1 x
- Page 439 and 440: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
- Page 441 and 442: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
- Page 443 and 444: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
- Page 445 and 446: 5.7. EMBEDDING IN AFFINE HULL 4455.
- Page 447 and 448: 5.7. EMBEDDING IN AFFINE HULL 447Fo
- Page 449 and 450: 5.7. EMBEDDING IN AFFINE HULL 4495.
- Page 451 and 452: 5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX
- Page 453: 5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX
- Page 457 and 458: 5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX
- Page 459 and 460: 5.9. BRIDGE: CONVEX POLYHEDRA TO ED
- Page 461 and 462: 5.9. BRIDGE: CONVEX POLYHEDRA TO ED
- Page 463 and 464: 5.9. BRIDGE: CONVEX POLYHEDRA TO ED
- Page 465 and 466: 5.10. EDM-ENTRY COMPOSITION 465of a
- Page 467 and 468: 5.10. EDM-ENTRY COMPOSITION 467Then
- Page 469 and 470: 5.11. EDM INDEFINITENESS 4695.11.1
- Page 471 and 472: 5.11. EDM INDEFINITENESS 471we have
- Page 473 and 474: 5.11. EDM INDEFINITENESS 473So beca
- Page 475 and 476: 5.11. EDM INDEFINITENESS 475holds o
- Page 477 and 478: 5.12. LIST RECONSTRUCTION 477where
- Page 479 and 480: 5.12. LIST RECONSTRUCTION 479(a)(c)
- Page 481 and 482: 5.13. RECONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES 481Wi
- Page 483 and 484: 5.13. RECONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES 483d
- Page 485 and 486: 5.13. RECONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES 485Th
- Page 487 and 488: 5.14. FIFTH PROPERTY OF EUCLIDEAN M
- Page 489 and 490: 5.14. FIFTH PROPERTY OF EUCLIDEAN M
- Page 491 and 492: 5.14. FIFTH PROPERTY OF EUCLIDEAN M
- Page 493 and 494: 5.14. FIFTH PROPERTY OF EUCLIDEAN M
- Page 495 and 496: 5.14. FIFTH PROPERTY OF EUCLIDEAN M
- Page 497 and 498: Chapter 6Cone of distance matricesF
- Page 499 and 500: 6.1. DEFINING EDM CONE 4996.1 Defin
- Page 501 and 502: 6.2. POLYHEDRAL BOUNDS 501This cone
- Page 503 and 504: 6.4. EDM DEFINITION IN 11 T 503That
454 CHAPTER 5. EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE MATRIX5.8.2.1.1 Shore. The columns of Ξ r V N Ξ c hold a basis for N(1 T )when Ξ r and Ξ c are permutation matrices. In other words, any permutationof the rows or columns of V N leaves its range and nullspace unchanged;id est, R(Ξ r V N Ξ c )= R(V N )= N(1 T ) (898). Hence, two distinct matrixinequalities can be equivalent tests of the positive semidefiniteness of D onR(V N ) ; id est, −VN TDV N ≽ 0 ⇔ −(Ξ r V N Ξ c ) T D(Ξ r V N Ξ c )≽0. By properlychoosing permutation matrices, 5.39 the leading principal submatrix T Ξ ∈ S 2of −(Ξ r V N Ξ c ) T D(Ξ r V N Ξ c ) may be loaded with the entries of D needed totest any particular triangle inequality (similarly to (1053)-(1061)). Becauseall the triangle inequalities can be individually tested using a test equivalentto the lone matrix inequality −VN TDV N ≽0, it logically follows that the lonematrix inequality tests all those triangle inequalities simultaneously. Weconclude that −VN TDV N ≽0 is a sufficient test for the fourth property of theEuclidean metric, triangle inequality.5.8.2.2 Strict triangle inequalityWithout exception, all the inequalities in (1061) and (1062) can be madestrict while their corresponding implications remain true. The thenstrict inequality (1061a) or (1062) may be interpreted as a strict triangleinequality under which collinear arrangement of points is not allowed.[223,24/6, p.322] Hence by similar reasoning, −VN TDV N ≻ 0 is a sufficienttest of all the strict triangle inequalities; id est,δ(D) = 0D T = D−V T N DV N ≻ 0⎫⎬⎭ ⇒ √ d ij < √ d ik + √ d kj , i≠j ≠k (1064)5.8.3 −V T N DV N nestingFrom (1058) observe that T =−VN TDV N | N←3 . In fact, for D ∈ EDM N ,the leading principal submatrices of −VN TDV N form a nested sequence (byinclusion) whose members are individually positive semidefinite [159] [202][331] and have the same form as T ; videlicet, 5.405.39 To individually test triangle inequality | √ d ik − √ d kj | ≤ √ d ij ≤ √ d ik + √ d kj forparticular i,k,j, set Ξ r (i,1)= Ξ r (k,2)= Ξ r (j,3)=1 and Ξ c = I .5.40 −V DV | N←1 = 0 ∈ S 0 + (B.4.1)