6
$\begingroup$

Playing around with Matlab I noticed something very peculiar:

Take the symmetric matrix $A \in \mathbb R^{n \times n}$ defined by

$$A_{ij}= i \delta_{ij} - \frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{i}\sqrt{j}}\,.$$

Here $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta.

We first note that this matrix is not diagonally dominant if $n$ is large enough.

This is because $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \vert A_{i,1}\vert=\infty >\vert A_{1,1} \vert.$

It is obvious that we require $\varepsilon<1$ in order for $A$ to be positive definite, since otherwise $A_{1,1}\le 0.$

However, I noticed that for let's say $\varepsilon=0.1$ one can make the dimension as large as one wants and the matrix remains positive definite.

Question: How can one show that $A$ is positive definite independent of the dimension if $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small but fixed ?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ It looks like a consequence of Gershgorin disks theorem. But precise computations have to be done. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 13, 2020 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Sascha, does your transition occur at $\epsilon = 6/\pi^2$? $\endgroup$
    – RaphaelB4
    Commented Jan 13, 2020 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ @RaphaelB4 it is hard to say numerically to be honest. $\endgroup$
    – Sascha
    Commented Jan 13, 2020 at 15:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JeanMarieBecker mhmm, not sure. I think Gershgorin's disk theorem is somewhat equivalent to being diagonally dominant for positive definite matrices. $\endgroup$
    – Sascha
    Commented Jan 13, 2020 at 15:46

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

The claim is true with $\epsilon=\frac6{\pi^2}\,$.

To see this, remark that by changing variable $x_i=y_i\sqrt i\,$, this is equivalent to proving that $$\epsilon\left(\left(\frac1{ij}\right)\right)_{1\le i,j}\le I_\infty.$$ The first (infinite) matrix is $V\otimes V$ with $V=(1,\frac12\,,\ldots,\frac1n\,,\ldots)$. It is symmetric, rank-one, with eigenvalues $0$ (infinitely many times) and ${\rm Tr}(V\otimes V)=\frac{\pi^2}6$ (simple).

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ what a nice argument this is. Just out of curiosity. Is it also obvious to see that the random signs do not matter? Cause this would somehow break the multiplicative structure. $\endgroup$
    – Sascha
    Commented Jan 13, 2020 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Sascha. This is not the same situation, because then the corresponding matrix is not any more rank-one. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 13, 2020 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ I agree, let me just accept this wonderful answer and ask a follow-up question. $\endgroup$
    – Sascha
    Commented Jan 13, 2020 at 16:54

You must log in to answer this question.

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