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

Can Anyone prove the following conjecture?

Consider $k$ rational function vectors $V_1(x_1,\cdots,x_n),\cdots,V_k(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$. They are called \textbf{linearly dependent} if there exists rational functions $\alpha_1(x_1,\cdots,x_n),\cdots,\alpha_k(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ which are not identically zero such that \begin{align} \alpha_1(x_1,\cdots,x_n)V_1(x_1,\cdots,x_n)+\cdots+\alpha_k(x_1,\cdots,x_n)V_1(x_1,\cdots,x_n)=0 \end{align} This defines the rank of a matrix.

Conjecture: (Rank-1 Decomposition Conjecture) Let a $l \times m$ polynomial matrix \begin{align} A(x_1,\cdots,x_n)= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} a_{11}(x_1,\cdots,x_n) & \cdots & a_{1m}(x_1,\cdots,x_n) \newline \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \newline a_{l1}(x_1,\cdots,x_n) & \cdots & a_{lm}(x_1,\cdots,x_n) \end{array} \right) \end{align} is rank $k$ where $a_{ij}$ are linear functions whose coefficients are taken from $\mathbb{C}$. Then, there exists $l \times m$ polynomial matrices $A^{(1)}(x_1,\cdots,x_n),\cdots,A^{(k)}(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ that satisfies the following three properties:

(i) $A(x_1,\cdots,x_n)=A^{(1)}(x_1,\cdots,x_n)+ \cdots + A^{(k)}(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$.

(ii) The rank of $A^{(i)}(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ is $1$.

(iii) The elements of $A^{(i)}(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ are linear functions on $x_1,\cdots,x_n$ with coefficients taken from $\mathbb{C}$.

Examples : (1) $\left( \begin{array}{ccc} x_1 & x_2 & x_3 \newline x_4 & x_5 & x_6 \end{array} \right)$

= $\left(\begin{array}{ccc} x_1 & x_2 & x_3 \newline 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)$ + $\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \newline x_4 & x_5 & x_6 \end{array}\right) $

(2) $\left( \begin{array}{cccc} x_1 & x_2 & x_5 & x_5 \newline x_1 & x_2 & x_6 & x_6 \newline x_1 & x_2 & x_7 & x_7 \newline x_8 & x_9 & x_{10} & x_{11} \end{array}\right) $

$= \left( \begin{array}{cccc} x_1 & x_2 & 0 & 0 \newline x_1 & x_2 & 0 & 0 \newline x_1 & x_2 & 0 & 0 \newline 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} \right) + \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & x_5 & x_5 \newline 0 & 0 & x_6 & x_6 \newline 0 & 0 & x_7 & x_7 \newline 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) + \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \newline 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \newline 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \newline x_8 & x_9 & x_{10} & x_{11} \end{array} \right) $

(3) $\left( \begin{array}{cc} x_1 & x_4 \newline x_2 & x_5 \newline x_3 & x_6 \end{array}\right)$

$= \left( \begin{array}{cc} x_1 & 0 \newline x_2 & 0 \newline x_3 & 0 \end{array} \right) + \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & x_4 \newline 0 & x_5 \newline 0 & x_6 \end{array}\right) $

(4) $ \left( \begin{array}{ccc} x_1 & 2 x_1 & 3 x_1 \newline 2x_2 & 4 x_2 & 6 x_2 \newline x_3 & 2 x_3 & 4 x_3 \end{array} \right)$

$= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} x_1 & 2 x_1 & 3 x_1 \newline 2x_2 & 4 x_2 & 6 x_2 \newline x_3 & 2 x_3 & 3 x_3 \end{array} \right) + \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \newline 0 & 0 & 0 \newline 0 & 0 & x_3 \end{array} \right) $

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The answer is NO. Take $l=m=3$ and the generic skew-symmetric matrix $$A:=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & x & y \\\\ -x & 0 & z \\\\ -y & -z & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$ The rank is $k=2$, yet it cannot be written $A=A^1+A^2$ where both $A^j$ would be linear in the indeterminates $x,y,z$ and rank-one.

Sketch of the proof. Such matrices $A^j$ must be of the form $CR$ where one of the column $C$ or the row $R$ is constant and the other one is linear (Hint: use Gauss' Lemma). If the decomposition holds, we have $A=C^1R^1+C^2R^2$ with three possible cases. Either both rows $R^j$ are constant, or both column $C^j$, or one row and one column. In the first case, the range of $A(x,y,z)$ would be contained in the fixed plane spanned by $R^1$ and $R^2$, which is false. The second case is treated as well. There remains the case where $C^1$ and $R^2$ are constant, whereas $C^2$ and $R^1$ are linear. But then the fixed vector $C^1$ belongs to the range of $A(x,y,z)$ for every $(x,y,z)$ such that $R^1$ is not parallel to $R^2$, therefore for almost every $(x,y,z)$. Again, this is absurd.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for the answer. –  Seyong Nov 11 '10 at 21:14
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.