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

Given: a finite set of n by n idempotent complex matrices. If pairwise products are zero, it is trivial to show the sum is idempotent. The converse, while true, is not so trivial: If the sum is idempotent, all pairwise products are zero.

I have been told that the converse is well known among statisticians but I cannot find a reference. Do you know one?

share|improve this question
1  
What does NASC mean? –  Todd Trimble Dec 1 '12 at 13:45
1  
Necessary And Sufficient Conditions, apparently. –  Allen Knutson Dec 1 '12 at 16:47
    
Ah, thanks Allen. –  Todd Trimble Dec 1 '12 at 17:29
    
I am NOT assuming matrices are self adjoint. I'm not looking for a proof, just a reference. –  user29604 Dec 3 '12 at 3:06
add comment

1 Answer 1

The key point is that the image of the sum of the idempotents is necessarily the direct sum of the images of the individual idempotents.

Suppose that $E_1,\ldots,E_k$ are idempotent and $F = \sum E_i$ is idempotent. Let $R_i$ and $K_i$ be the image and kernel of $E_i$, respectively, and let $R$ be the image of $F$.

The trace of an idempotent equals its rank, so $$\dim R = \mathrm{tr}(F) = \sum \mathrm{tr}(E_i) = \sum \dim R_i.$$ Furthermore $R$ is a subspace of $\sum R_i$ and $\sum R_i$ has dimension at most $\sum \dim R_i$, with equality iff this sum is direct, so we actually have $$R = R_1\oplus \cdots \oplus R_k.$$ Consider a vector $v_1\in R_1$. By definition $$(v_1,0,\ldots,0) = Fv_1 = (E_1v_1,E_2v_1,\ldots,E_k v_1)$$ with respect to this decomposition. In other words, $R_1\subset K_i$ for all $i\neq 1$, or $E_i E_1 = 0$ for all $i\neq 1$. It follows similarly that $E_i E_j = 0$ for all $i\neq j$.

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.