3
$\begingroup$

I am looking at trying to show that a complex symmetric matrix always has a complex symmetric square root. Showing a square root exists is fairly easy if the matrix is also invertible by using the Jordan Canonical Form.

I have seen on here that showing that the square root of a matrix A is a (Hermite) polynomial in A proves that if A is symmetric then so is its square root. My question is, why is this true?

The reference for this would be Function of Matrices, Defn 1.2 (Matrix Function using Jordan Canonical Form) and Defn 1.4 (Matrix Function using Hermite Interpolation) and Theorem 1.12 (which shows that the two definitions given are equivalent).

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I dont think this question is research level. It seems more like an exercise in linear algebra. Anyhow I have no idea where to find the references that you mentioned here. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 12:16
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand what exactly do you need. "There always exist a symmetric square root", or "if a square root exists, then a symmetric square root exists", or "if a matrix is invertible, then a symmetric square root exists"? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 13:04
  • $\begingroup$ answered at mathoverflow.net/a/376980/11260 $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ @HenrikRüping Note that this is complex symmetric and not hermitian... Complex symmetric matrics behave very differently from what one might expect from the theory of real symmetric or hermitian matrices. $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 17:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker if you look at the deleted "answer" at the question you link to, you will see that it is precisely the last part of Brendan's answer which the OP is asking about. (I think that probably the underlying question is more MSE than MO but I do suspect that those voting to close are jumping to the conclusion that complex symmetric matrices must be just as easy and standard as hermitian matrices, a sentiment I disagree with.) $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 18:02

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

If your complex symmetric matrix $A$ is not invertible, it might not have a square root at all, e.g. $$ \pmatrix{i & 1\cr 1 & -i\cr}$$ If $A$ is invertible, let $\lambda_j$ be the eigenvalues of $A$ and $m_j$ their multiplicities. Let $P(z)$ be a polynomial such that $P(z)$ and the first $m_j-1$ of its derivatives agree with some branch of $\sqrt{z}$ and the first $m_j-1$ of its derivatives at each $\lambda_j$. Then the polynomial $P(z)^2 - z$ and the first $m_j - 1$ of its derivatives are $0$ at $\lambda_j$, implying that $P(z)^2 - z$ is divisible by the characteristic polynomial of $A$, and so the Cayley-Hamilton theorem implies $P(A)^2 = A$, i.e. $P(A)$ is a square root of $A$.

Of course if $A$ is symmetric, $P(A)$ is symmetric.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This is the Hermite interpolation method cited by the OP. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 11, 2023 at 4:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BrendanMcKay Yes, I'm just trying to explain to the OP why it works. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 12, 2023 at 3:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .