Some basic observations lead me to ask the following quesiton

Let $A_1, \cdots, A_m$ be $n\times n$ complex matrices. For positive integer $k\ge 1$, show $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}Tr\{(A_1^*A_1)^k\}&Tr\{(A_1^*A_2)^k\}&\cdots &Tr\{(A_1^*A_m)^k\}\\Tr\{(A_2^*A_1)^k\}&Tr\{(A_2^*A_2)^k\}&\cdots &Tr\{(A_2^*A_m)^k\}\\\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\Tr\{(A_m^*A_1)^k\}&Tr\{(A_m^*A_2)^k\}&\cdots &Tr\{(A_m^*A_m)^k\} \end{array}\right)$$ is positive semidefinite.


1). When $m=2$, it suffices to show $|Tr\{(A_1^*A_2)^k\}|^2\le Tr\{(A_1^*A_1)^k\}\cdot Tr\{(A_2^*A_2)^k\}$, which is a consequence of a unitarily invariant norm inequality appeared in p.81 of X.Zhan, Matrix inequalities, Springer, 2002.

2). It is easy to show $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}(Tr\{A_1^*A_1\})^k&(Tr\{A_1^*A_2\})^k&\cdots &(Tr\{A_1^*A_m\})^k\\(Tr\{A_2^*A_1\})^k&(Tr\{A_2^*A_2\})^k&\cdots &(Tr\{A_2^*A_m\})^k\\\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\(Tr\{A_m^*A_1\})^k&(Tr\{A_m^*A_2\})^k&\cdots &(Tr\{A_m^*A_m\})^k \end{array}\right)$$ is positive semidefinite, since it is $k$ Hadamard product of a Gram matrix.

  • $\begingroup$ I fixed your latex, which was not rendering correctly. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 3 '10 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ Even though it is a closely related problem I don't see why you couldn't ask it in a new question. That way you wouldn't have had to unaccept Pavel Etingof's answer. It is common to ask follow-up questions and link to the previous ones, and I like that better than editing when the original questions have already been answered. $\endgroup$ – Gjergji Zaimi May 9 '10 at 1:06

It seems that this is not true. Here is a counterexample. Consider a regular $d$-gon, where $d\ge 3$ is an odd number. Let $S,T$ be the permutation matrices on the vertices of this $d$-gon, induced by reflections in two adjacent symmetry axes. Let $A_1=1, A_2=S, A_3=T$, which are $d$ by $d$ matrices. We have $S^2=T^2=1$, and $ST$ is a rotation of order $d$ (so $(ST)^2$ has no fixed points).

Let $k=2$. Then the matrix in the question seems to be the following: $$ \left(\begin{matrix} d & d & d\\ d & d & 0\\ d & 0 & d\\ \end{matrix}\right) $$ The determinant of this matrix is $-d^3$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have just misread your solution, ignoring the word "permutation" (so I understood your S and T as the 2x2 matrices corresponding to the reflections of the real plane R^2). Then, the matrix in the question looks the same, except that the d's should be replaced by 2's and the 0's should be replaced by 2 cos (2pi/d) or something like that. Anyway, the matrix still has negative determinant, and thus we get a counterexample for 2x2 matrices. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Mar 3 '10 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ I'd love to know what suggested the example :P $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 3 '10 at 19:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, I decided to look at unitary matrices so that I could apply group theory. In this case, if the matrices commute, the inequality holds, since it reduces to the case $k=1$. So I took the simplest noncommutative situation. $\endgroup$ – Pavel Etingof Mar 3 '10 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, sorry. I should have put 'show' as 'prove or disprove'. I did not want to mislead you. I should be more careful about this. Anyway, thank you, readers. $\endgroup$ – Sunni Mar 4 '10 at 0:38

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.