Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is by any means elementary, but since I have asked this question on Stark Exchange but received no satisfactory answers I decide to post it here.

It is well known that a symmetric matrix over field $\Bbb F$ is congruent to a diagonal matrix, i.e., there exists some A s.t. $A^TUA=D$ with $U$ symmetric and $D$ diagonal. If $\Bbb F=\Bbb C$ then we can make $D=I$.

Recently I learned that if $U$ is unitary that we can do one step further by requiring $A$ to be unitary too. A similar result holds for unitary skew matrices. But I fail to figure out a proof myself.

Can anyone provide a proof of this or at least help me to locate some references? Many thanks!

share|improve this question
    
It is simply the spectral theorem --- unitary matrices are normal! –  Federico Poloni Jul 29 '12 at 14:32
    
It seems you do not read my statement carefully:) –  Zhang Xiao Jul 29 '12 at 14:41
1  
What do you mean by a unitary matrix over an arbitrary field? Are you fixing an involution on $F$? –  Qiaochu Yuan Jul 29 '12 at 15:40
    
Yuan: the formal statement is like this: for any unitary symmetry matrix (over $\Bbb C$), there exists some unitary matrix $A$ such that $A^TUA=I$. And for unitary skew matrix (again over $\Bbb C$), some unitary $A$ such that $A^TUA=S$, $S$ is the standard symplectic matrix. The crucial point is to make every matrix unitary. –  Zhang Xiao Jul 29 '12 at 15:53
    
So this is a question over $\mathbb{C}$, not over an arbitrary field $F$? –  Qiaochu Yuan Jul 29 '12 at 22:21

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Here is a way to answer the second question. I am assuming complex matrices and using '$X^{*}=\overline{X}^{\mathrm{T}}$. The first question (already answered by Suvrit ) I discuss at the end.

Assume '$U^{*}U=I$ and $U^{\mathrm{T}}=-U$. If $\mathbf{v}$ is nonzero and $U\mathbf{v}=\lambda\mathbf{v}$ then $|\lambda|=1$ and the spectral theorem for normal matrices implies $U^{*}\mathbf{v}=\overline{\lambda}\mathbf{v}$. Take the conjugate to find $U^{\mathrm{T}}\overline{\mathbf{v}}=\lambda\overline{\mathbf{v}}$. Since $U^{\mathrm{T}}=-U$ we find $U\overline{\mathbf{v}}=-\lambda\overline{\mathbf{v}}$. This mean $\overline{\mathbf{v}}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ are orthogonal unit vectors. We could have started with an orthonormal basis for the whole eigenspace of $\lambda$ and so can find an orthonormal basis $\mathbf{v}_{1},\overline{\mathbf{v}_{1}},\dots,\mathbf{v}_{N},\overline{\mathbf{v}_{N}}$ so we see we are on an even dimensional space. Let the corresponding eigenvalues be $\lambda_{1},-\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{N},-\lambda_{N}$.

We get a new real orthonormal basis $\mathbf{w}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{w}_{2N}$ by defining $$ \mathbf{w}_{2j}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathbf{v}_{j}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{\mathbf{v}_{j}} $$ and $$ \mathbf{w}_{2j+1}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\mathbf{v}_{j}-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{\mathbf{v}_{j}} $$ Since $$ U\mathbf{w}_{2j}=\lambda_{j}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathbf{v}_{j}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda_{j}\overline{\mathbf{v}_{j}}=-i\lambda_{j}\mathbf{w}_{2j+1} $$ and $$ U\mathbf{w}_{2j+1}=\lambda_{j}\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\mathbf{v}_{j}+\lambda_{j}\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{\mathbf{v}_{j}}=i\lambda_{j}\mathbf{w}_{2j} $$ we see there is a real orthogonal matrix $O$ so that $$ U=O^{*}DO=O^{\mathrm{T}}DO $$ where $D$ is block diagonal with blocks $$ \left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 & i\lambda_{j}\\ -i\lambda_{j} & 0 \end{array}\right]. $$ Let $Q$ be block diagonal with blocks $$ \sqrt{i\lambda_{j}}\left[\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right] $$ and $S$ be block diagonal with blocks $$ \left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1\\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right]. $$ Then $D=QSQ=Q^{\mathrm{T}}SQ$ and $$ U=O^{\mathrm{T}}Q^{\mathrm{T}}SQO. $$ The desired unitary is $QO$.

If $S$ is not what you consider the standard symplectic matrix, a permutation matrix will fix that.

In the case of $U$ unitary and $U^\mathrm{T} = U$ the proof starts the same, but we get $U\overline{\mathbf{v}}=\lambda\overline{\mathbf{v}}$ This leads to real eigenvectors, and so a real orthogonal matrix $O$ with $U=O^{\mathrm{T}}DO$ and $D$ diagonal. So we have reduced to the case of a diagonal unitary, which is easy. Any diagonal square root will do.

share|improve this answer
    
I like this down-to-ground proof, many thanks! –  Zhang Xiao Jul 30 '12 at 5:33

If I parsed the original question correctly, $U$ is unitary as well as symmetric. In this case, we can indeed show $A^TUA=I$. Here's how.

Since $U$ is unitary, we can write it as $U=e^{iH}$ for some Hermitian matrix $H$. But, since $U^T=U$ by assumption, this shows that $U^T=(e^{iH})^T=e^{iH^T}=e^{i\overline{H}}=e^{iH}=U$, which implies that $H$ is actually real, symmetric. Now, simply define $A=e^{-iH/2}$; this matrix is unitary, and with this choice $A^TUA=I$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks a lot Suvrit! I find your answer quite simple and illuminating. –  Zhang Xiao Jul 30 '12 at 5:29
    
A technical point here: one needs to select $H$ with spectrum in $[0,2\pi)$ so that $\overline{H}$ has the same spectrum and we can conclude form the equality of exponentials the equality of $H$ and $\overline{H}$. –  Terry Loring Aug 2 '12 at 2:53

The key point is that unitary matrices have orthogonal eigenvectors, thus you can form an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, which is the same thing as a unitary matrix $A$ with the property you describe.

Let $v$ and $w$ be two eigenvectors with different eigenvalues $\lambda_v$ and $\lambda_w$, then $(v \cdot w) = (Uv \cdot Uw)=(\lambda_v v \cdot \lambda_w w)= \lambda_v \bar{\lambda}_w (v \cdot w)$. Since $|\lambda_w|=1$, $\lambda_v \bar{\lambda}_w=\lambda_v \lambda_w^{-1}\neq 1$ so $v\cdot w=0$.

So choose an orthonormal basis for each eigenspace and take the union, then choose the unitary matrix mapping $e_n$ to the $n$th basis vector.

Edit: This is assuming the transpose in $A^T U A$ is the conjugate-transpose. If it is the normal transpose, Suvrit's answer is correct.

share|improve this answer
1  
@Will Sawin, if the questioner intends literally what was written, there is not a hermitian "inner product", but complex-bilinear, no? –  paul garrett Jul 29 '12 at 19:18
    
How do you define a unitary matrix without a hermitian inner product? –  Will Sawin Jul 29 '12 at 20:11
    
@Will Sawin, I don't know what the questioner really wants... Of course, with "matrices", there're "transpose", and "transpose-conjugate", but, as you suggest, it's hard to know what point this might have. The questioner's mention that the outcome could be skew under some (?) hypothesis is a clue, but ... :) –  paul garrett Jul 29 '12 at 20:21
    
There's two definitions of transpose, but only one definition of unitary, as far as I'm aware. I think it's safe to guess that Zhang Xiao wants that one. –  Will Sawin Jul 29 '12 at 21:23
    
@Will Sawin, your guess is as good as mine, but the questioner's remark about "skew-unitary" makes me think the questioner uses "unitary" as synonym for (what would more often nowadays be) "orthogonal". So "skew-unitary" means "skew-symmetric", maybe, and then the question is about "normal form" for skew-symmetric things? Would be mildly compatible with asking about canonical forms for symmetric things. Or maybe not... :) –  paul garrett Jul 29 '12 at 21:56

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.