17
$\begingroup$

In their paper, "Corners of Normal Matrices," R. Bhatia and M.D. Choi ask the following question: Given a matrix pair $(B,C)$ where $B,C∈M_n$, does there exist matrices $A,D ∈ M_n$ such that the block matrix:

$N = \begin{bmatrix} A & B \\ C & D \end{bmatrix}$

is normal. I have made some progress on this problem by constructing explicit normal matrices of the form above for certain pairs of matrices $(B,C)$ that do not appear in the literature. One open question in the paper is whether or not the quantity $α_n=\sup\{\frac{||B||}{||C||}:∃A,D ∈ M_n$ such that N is normal $\}$ is bounded. Moreover, they prove that $α_n < \sqrt{n}$ for $n > 4$. I suspect that $α_n$ is unbounded but I can only get that $α_n \geq \sqrt{2}$. Does anyone have any ideas here?

Edit after setting the bounty

What I am looking for, if it exists, is a sequence of $n \times n$ matrices, $A_n, B_n, C_n, D_n$ such that when you put them in the matrix configuration above, the resulting matrix is normal and $\frac{||B_n||}{||C_n||} \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$. Alternatively, if you can prove that my intuition is wrong, i.e. show that $\alpha_n$ is bounded, then you will also receive the bounty.

Second Edit The norm we are considering here is the usual operator norm.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, you can get $\alpha_n \geq \sqrt{3}$ for all $n \geq 3$ just by embedding the $6\times 6$ matrix from that paper in a $2n\times 2n$ matrix, padding with zeros appropriately. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Johnston Feb 27 '14 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ @ Nathaniel, can I iterate to get something even better? $\endgroup$ – Mustafa Said Feb 28 '14 at 6:02
  • $\begingroup$ What kind of restrictions would you like to impose? There are no solutions for $n=1$, $C=0$ and $B\ne0$ for example... $\endgroup$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Jul 28 '14 at 6:24
  • $\begingroup$ How much important is that $A$ and $D$ have same size, that is $B$ and $C$ are square matrices ? $\endgroup$ – Denis Serre Jan 21 '17 at 12:14
1
$\begingroup$

The value of $\alpha_n$ is not bounded for many naturally defined norms on $\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$, including those induced from $L^p$ norms on $\mathbb{C}^n$ with $p\neq2$. Denoting these norms by $\|\cdot\|_p$, I give an example of a normal matrix $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}F&G\\H&K\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ which consists of four $n\times n$ blocks and satisfies $\|G\|_p/\|H\|_p\in\Theta\left(n^{(p-2)/4p}\right)$.

For $A\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$, denote by $A^{\otimes k}$ the matrix with rows and columns labeled by $\{1,\ldots,r\}^k$ defined as $A_{i_1...i_k}^{j_1...j_k}=A_{i_1}^{j_1}...A_{i_k}^{j_k}$. Clearly, $A^{\otimes k}$ is normal if $A$ is normal.

Now let $A$ be the normal matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}0&0&\sqrt{2}&0\\1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&1\\1&0&0&0\end{pmatrix}$$ from the cited paper. Then, the $(1...1)$ row of $A^{\otimes2k}$ has a unique nonzero entry $2^k$ while the $(1...1)$ column of $A^{\otimes2k}$ has $2^{2k}$ nonzero entries all equal to $1$. So we can get a sequence of normal matrices $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}O_{1\times1}&Q_{1\times n}\\R_{n\times 1}&S_{1\times n}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ which have size $16^k\times16^k$ and satisfy $\|Q\|_p=2^k$, $\|R\|_p=2^{2k/p}$. Finally, we can note that $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}I&O\\O&N\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ is normal when $N$ is normal, so it is not a problem that $Q$ and $R$ are not square.


UPD. This answer was posted before the second edit.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ On a skim of the Bhatia-Choi paper, it looks like $|A|$ denotes the first singular value of $A$, equal to $\mathrm{sup}_{|x|=1} |Ax|$, not to $\mathrm{sup}_{ij} |A_{ij}|$. Or am I missing something? $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Jul 30 '14 at 20:36
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidSpeyer Thank you for the comment, I have edited my answer accordingly $\endgroup$ – user56203 Jul 30 '14 at 21:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The operator norm induced by $\|\cdot \|_{\infty}$ is $\max_j \sum_k |B_{jk}|$ (maximal row sum). It appears this is not what you're looking at here (if I understand your argument correctly, which perhaps I don't). $\endgroup$ – Christian Remling Jul 31 '14 at 3:00
  • $\begingroup$ @ChristianRemling Thanks for the comment, I still believe that the argument is correct but I edited my post. I described $A^{\otimes k}$ more explicitly and generalized the result to a larger family of norms $\endgroup$ – user56203 Jul 31 '14 at 9:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ We are interested in the usual euclidean operator norm in this question. $\endgroup$ – Mustafa Said Aug 1 '14 at 13:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.