3
$\begingroup$

Let $A, B$ be matrices over $\mathbb{C}$ of the same dimensions (not necessarily square). With $'$ denoting conjugate-transpose, and tr the trace, show for $n\in\mathbb{N}$ that

$ 2\,\mathrm{Re}\, \mathrm{tr} [(AB')^n] \le \mathrm{tr}[(AA')^n] + \mathrm{tr}[(BB')^n] $.

As Mikael de la Salle has pointed out, this is a corollary of Hoelder's inequality and the AM-GM inequality. However, the argument below suggests that it can be viewed as coming from a combinatorial identity, as follows.

We have that RHS$-$LHS is a sum of squares. Write $\|M\|^2 := \mathrm{tr}(MM')$. As examples:

when $n=1$, it is $\|A-B\|^2$;

when $n=2$, it is $\|AA'-BB'\|^2+\|AB'-BA'\|^2$;

when $n=3$, it is $ \|A'BA' - B'AB'\|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \|A' A B' - B'AA'\|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \|B'B A' - A'BB'\|^2 +\\ + \frac{1}{2} \|AA'A - AB'B\|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \|AA'A - BB'A\|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \|BB'B - BA'A\|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \|BB'B - AA'B\|^2; $

and ages ago I worked out $n=4$, which has coefficients 1/2, 1/3, 1/6 in it, but think I messed it up, so won't put it up here for the moment.

Anyway, by an iterative argument I can show that this is true for all $n$: basically I write RHS$-$LHS as a sum of squares plus a remainder term. I then have a procedure that makes the remainder term smaller and smaller, and I use compactness to show that in the limit the remainder goes to $0$.

However, that in effect uses Analysis to prove what looks like an algebraic result, and in general my expansion of RHS$-$LHS seems always to give rise to a sum of squares with rational coefficients, apparently of the form (integer)/$(n-1)!$, which my Analysis-based proof won't show. So I am now thinking that this is some sort of combinatorial identity like the Faa di Bruno formula ... What does the expansion look like for arbitrary $n$? Is there an explicit formula?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Hoelder's inequality for matrices (see for example mathoverflow.net/q/78330/10265) implies that $tr((AB')^n) \leq \sqrt{$tr((AA')^n)$tr((BB')^n)}$. This is stronger than your inequality. $\endgroup$ – Mikael de la Salle Nov 8 '18 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ To nitpick, we should better use $| \cdot |$ on the lhs at least since the matrices are allowed to be complex... $\endgroup$ – Suvrit Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ yeah I dopily left the "Re" off - thanks. $\endgroup$ – Richard Martin Nov 12 '18 at 14:29
  • $\begingroup$ @RichardMartin -- could you edit the post to highlight the precise / complete question you are asking? thanks. $\endgroup$ – Suvrit Nov 12 '18 at 20:52

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.