MathOverflow will be down for maintenance for approximately 3 hours, starting Monday evening (06/24/2013) at approximately 9:00 PM Eastern time (UTC-4).
6

1

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?

flag
1 
What does NASC mean? – Todd Trimble Dec 1 at 13:45
1 
Necessary And Sufficient Conditions, apparently. – Allen Knutson Dec 1 at 16:47
Ah, thanks Allen. – Todd Trimble Dec 1 at 17:29

2 Answers

3

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 $i\neq j$.

link|flag
0

I am NOT assuming matrices are self adjoint. I'm not looking for a proof, just a reference.

link|flag
If you register your first account then you can add this extra clarification in yourself, rather than leaving it below the fold as an answer – Yemon Choi Dec 3 at 4:11

Your Answer

Get an OpenID
or

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