Timeline for On certain decomposition of unitary symmetric matrices
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2012 at 5:32 | comment | added | Zhang Xiao | Will and Paul: My guess is both Suvrit and Terry Loring interpret the question in the "right" way. And by "right" I mean the way I interpret it:) Anyway, thanks for the discussion. | |
| Jul 29, 2012 at 21:56 | comment | added | paul garrett | @Will Sawin, your guess is as good as mine, but the questioner's remark about "skew-unitary" makes me think the questioner uses "unitary" as synonym for (what would more often nowadays be) "orthogonal". So "skew-unitary" means "skew-symmetric", maybe, and then the question is about "normal form" for skew-symmetric things? Would be mildly compatible with asking about canonical forms for symmetric things. Or maybe not... :) | |
| Jul 29, 2012 at 21:25 | history | edited | Will Sawin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 141 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Jul 29, 2012 at 21:23 | comment | added | Will Sawin | There's two definitions of transpose, but only one definition of unitary, as far as I'm aware. I think it's safe to guess that Zhang Xiao wants that one. | |
| Jul 29, 2012 at 20:21 | comment | added | paul garrett | @Will Sawin, I don't know what the questioner really wants... Of course, with "matrices", there're "transpose", and "transpose-conjugate", but, as you suggest, it's hard to know what point this might have. The questioner's mention that the outcome could be skew under some (?) hypothesis is a clue, but ... :) | |
| Jul 29, 2012 at 20:11 | comment | added | Will Sawin | How do you define a unitary matrix without a hermitian inner product? | |
| Jul 29, 2012 at 19:18 | comment | added | paul garrett | @Will Sawin, if the questioner intends literally what was written, there is not a hermitian "inner product", but complex-bilinear, no? | |
| Jul 29, 2012 at 19:13 | history | answered | Will Sawin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |