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

Suppose that $A$ is an arbitrary fixed $n\times n$ matrix and $G$ a random $n\times n$ matrix with i.i.d. $N(0,1)$ entries. Is there a simple proof that $A+G$ is invertible with probability 1?

What if $G$ is a random Wigner matrix (symmetric, upper diagonal entries are i.i.d. $N(0,1)$)? Is $A+G$ still invertible with probability 1? Is there a simple proof?

share|improve this question
7  
You can write $det(A+G)$ has a polynomial in $G_{ij}$ and the set of zeroes of $det(A+X)$ has null Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^{n^2}$. Since $(G_{ij})_{ij}$ can be seen as a standard Gaussian in $\mathbb{R}^{n^2}$, the result follows. –  Alekk Oct 26 '12 at 9:06
3  
What you describe is a nondegenerate Gaussian measure on the vector space of $n\times n$ matrices. As indicated somewhere else on this site, such a measure is absolutely continuous w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure. Since the Lebesgue measure of the hypersurface $\det A=0$ is zero, so will be its Gaussian measure. Thus with probability $0$ a a random matrix (of the first type you indicated) is not invertible. –  Liviu Nicolaescu Oct 26 '12 at 10:02
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

We use the idea suggested by Alekk.

Let $A_{i,j}$ the entries of $A$. Then in the first case, the entries of $M:=A+G$ are Gaussian independent random variables, that is, $M_{i,j}\sim N(A_{i,j},1)$. Denote $N$ the set of elements of $\Bbb R^{n^2}$ such that the matrix of generic term $x_{i,j}$ is not invertible. This set has null Lebesgue measure in $\Bbb R^{n^2}$ as it's the zeros of a polynomial. By independence, the family $(M_{i,j},i,j\in [n])$ is Gaussian, so $$p:=P(A+G\mbox{ is not invertible})=P((M_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^n\in S).$$

As the law of $(M_{i,j},i,j\in [n])$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure in $\Bbb R^{n^2}$, we conclude that $p=0$.

In the second case, write $\det(A+G)$ as a polynomial of the $G_{i,j},i\leqslant j$, and use the fact that $(G_{i,j},1\leqslant i\leqslant j\leqslant n)$ is Gaussian to conclude in the same way as in the first case.

  • The result doesn't depend on the choice of the deterministic matrix $A$.
  • We don't need i.i.d.ness, just the fact that $(G_{i,j},i,j\in [n])$ is Gaussian in the first case, $(G_{i,j},i\leqslant j,i,j\in [n])$ in the second.
  • We can have a more general result when the law of $(A_{i,j}+G_{i,j})_{i,j\in [n]}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure on $\Bbb R^{n^2}$.
share|improve this answer
add comment

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.