MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

For a linear transformation $A: C^n \to C^n$ let $Inv(A)$ be the lattice of all $A$-invariant subspaces. In work I.~Gohberg, L.~Rodman "On the Distance between Lattices of Invariant Subspaces of Matrices" analysis the distanse between $Inv(A)$ and $Inv(B)$ defined as follows: $$ dist(Inv(A),Inv(B))=\max\Big(\sup\limits_{M\in Inv(A)}\ \ \inf\limits_{L\in Inv(B)}||P_L-P_M||, \sup\limits_{M\in Inv(B)}\ \ \inf\limits_{L\in Inv(A)}||P_L-P_M||\Big), $$ where $P_N$ is orthogonal projector on the subspace $N$ in $C^n$.

I can not quite understand this definition. Why is there symmetry? Maybe someone met geometric Interpretation of these definition.

Thanks for your help.

share|cite|improve this question
This is the Hausdorff distance between the two sets. See e.g. – Pietro Majer Aug 24 '11 at 11:09

Essentially this is nothing else than the Hausdorff distance between these lattices (as sets of subspaces) if you consider $\|P_L-P_M\|$ as the distance between subspaces $L$ and $M$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.