v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
486 CHAPTER 5. EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE MATRIX5.13.2.4 InterludeMap reconstruction from comparative distance data, isotonic reconstruction,would also prove invaluable to stellar cartography where absolute interstellardistance is difficult to acquire. But we have not yet implemented the secondhalf (1152) of alternation (1149) for USA map data because memory-demandsexceed capability of our computer.5.13.2.4.1 Exercise. Convergence of isotonic solution by alternation.Empirically demonstrate convergence, discussed in5.13.2.3, on a smallerdata set.It would be remiss not to mention another method of solution to thisisotonic reconstruction problem: Once again we assume only comparativedistance data like (1141) is available. Given known set of indices Iminimize rankV DVD(1155)subject to d ij ≤ d kl ≤ d mn ∀(i,j,k,l,m,n)∈ ID ∈ EDM Nthis problem minimizes affine dimension while finding an EDM whoseentries satisfy known comparative relationships. Suitable rank heuristicsare discussed in4.4.1 and7.2.2 that will transform this to a convexoptimization problem.Using contemporary computers, even with a rank heuristic in place of theobjective function, this problem formulation is more difficult to compute thanthe relaxed counterpart problem (1148). That is because there exist efficientalgorithms to compute a selected few eigenvalues and eigenvectors from avery large matrix. Regardless, it is important to recognize: the optimalsolution set for this problem (1155) is practically always different from theoptimal solution set for its counterpart, problem (1147).5.14 Fifth property of Euclidean metricWe continue now with the question raised in5.3 regarding the necessityfor at least one requirement more than the four properties of the Euclideanmetric (5.2) to certify realizability of a bounded convex polyhedron or to
5.14. FIFTH PROPERTY OF EUCLIDEAN METRIC 487reconstruct a generating list for it from incomplete distance information.There we saw that the four Euclidean metric properties are necessary forD ∈ EDM N in the case N = 3, but become insufficient when cardinality Nexceeds 3 (regardless of affine dimension).5.14.1 RecapitulateIn the particular case N = 3, −V T N DV N ≽ 0 (1059) and D ∈ S 3 h are necessaryand sufficient conditions for D to be an EDM. By (1061), triangle inequality isthen the only Euclidean condition bounding the necessarily nonnegative d ij ;and those bounds are tight. That means the first four properties of theEuclidean metric are necessary and sufficient conditions for D to be an EDMin the case N = 3 ; for i,j∈{1, 2, 3}√dij ≥ 0, i ≠ j√dij = 0, i = j√dij = √ d ji √dij≤ √ d ik + √ d kj , i≠j ≠k⇔ −V T N DV N ≽ 0D ∈ S 3 h⇔ D ∈ EDM 3(1156)Yet those four properties become insufficient when N > 3.5.14.2 Derivation of the fifthCorrespondence between the triangle inequality and the EDM was developedin5.8.2 where a triangle inequality (1061a) was revealed within theleading principal 2 ×2 submatrix of −VN TDV N when positive semidefinite.Our choice of the leading principal submatrix was arbitrary; actually,a unique triangle inequality like (956) corresponds to any one of the(N −1)!/(2!(N −1 − 2)!) principal 2 ×2 submatrices. 5.59 Assuming D ∈ S 4 hand −VN TDV N ∈ S 3 , then by the positive (semi)definite principal submatricestheorem (A.3.1.0.4) it is sufficient to prove: all d ij are nonnegative, alltriangle inequalities are satisfied, and det(−VN TDV N) is nonnegative. WhenN = 4, in other words, that nonnegative determinant becomes the fifth andlast Euclidean metric requirement for D ∈ EDM N . We now endeavor toascribe geometric meaning to it.5.59 There are fewer principal 2×2 submatrices in −V T N DV N than there are triangles madeby four or more points because there are N!/(3!(N − 3)!) triangles made by point triples.The triangles corresponding to those submatrices all have vertex x 1 . (confer5.8.2.1)
- 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 and 454: 5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX
- Page 455 and 456: 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: 5.13. RECONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES 485Th
- 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
- Page 505 and 506: 6.4. EDM DEFINITION IN 11 T 505N(1
- Page 507 and 508: 6.4. EDM DEFINITION IN 11 T 507Then
- Page 509 and 510: 6.4. EDM DEFINITION IN 11 T 5096.4.
- Page 511 and 512: 6.5. CORRESPONDENCE TO PSD CONE S N
- Page 513 and 514: 6.5. CORRESPONDENCE TO PSD CONE S N
- Page 515 and 516: 6.5. CORRESPONDENCE TO PSD CONE S N
- Page 517 and 518: 6.6. VECTORIZATION & PROJECTION INT
- Page 519 and 520: 6.6. VECTORIZATION & PROJECTION INT
- Page 521 and 522: 6.6. VECTORIZATION & PROJECTION INT
- Page 523 and 524: 6.7. A GEOMETRY OF COMPLETION 523(b
- Page 525 and 526: 6.7. A GEOMETRY OF COMPLETION 525[3
- Page 527 and 528: 6.7. A GEOMETRY OF COMPLETION 527wh
- Page 529 and 530: 6.8. DUAL EDM CONE 529to the geomet
- Page 531 and 532: 6.8. DUAL EDM CONE 531Proof. First,
- Page 533 and 534: 6.8. DUAL EDM CONE 533EDM 2 = S 2 h
- Page 535 and 536: 6.8. DUAL EDM CONE 535therefore the
486 CHAPTER 5. EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE MATRIX5.13.2.4 InterludeMap reconstruction from comparative distance data, isotonic reconstruction,would also prove invaluable to stellar cartography where absolute interstellardistance is difficult to acquire. But we have not yet implemented the secondhalf (1152) of alternation (1149) for USA map data because memory-demandsexceed capability of our computer.5.13.2.4.1 Exercise. Convergence of isotonic solution by alternation.Empirically demonstrate convergence, discussed in5.13.2.3, on a smallerdata set.It would be remiss not to mention another method of solution to thisisotonic reconstruction problem: Once again we assume only comparativedistance data like (1141) is available. Given known set of indices Iminimize rankV DVD(1155)subject to d ij ≤ d kl ≤ d mn ∀(i,j,k,l,m,n)∈ ID ∈ EDM Nthis problem minimizes affine dimension while finding an EDM whoseentries satisfy known comparative relationships. Suitable rank heuristicsare discussed in4.4.1 and7.2.2 that will transform this to a convexoptimization problem.Using contemporary computers, even with a rank heuristic in place of theobjective function, this problem formulation is more difficult to compute thanthe relaxed counterpart problem (1148). That is because there exist efficientalgorithms to compute a selected few eigenvalues and eigenvectors from avery large matrix. Regardless, it is important to recognize: the optimalsolution set for this problem (1155) is practically always different from theoptimal solution set for its counterpart, problem (1147).5.14 Fifth property of Euclidean metricWe continue now with the question raised in5.3 regarding the necessityfor at least one requirement more than the four properties of the Euclideanmetric (5.2) to certify realizability of a bounded convex polyhedron or to