2
$\begingroup$

There seems to be many valid ways of generalizing the notion of the spectral radius $\rho(A)$ of a complex matrix $A$ to spectral radii of multiple operators. I am wondering if there is an abstract theory of what it means to be a multi-spectral radius $\rho(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ of complex matrices $A_1,\dots,A_r$.

Example 0: Suppose that $A_1,\dots,A_r$ are complex matrices and $1\leq p<\infty$. Then define $$\rho_p(A_1,\dots,A_r)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\big(\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n\in\{1,\dots,r\}}\|A_{i_1}\dots A_{i_r}\|^p\big)^{1/(pn)}.$$

We can call this notion of the spectral radius the $L_p$-spectral radius.

Theorem: $\rho_2(A_1,\dots,A_r)^2=\rho(A_1\otimes\overline{A_1}+\dots+A_r\otimes\overline{A_r})$. Here, $\overline{A}=(A^*)^T=(A^T)^*$. Alternatively, define the completely positive linear mapping $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r):M_n(\mathbb{C})\rightarrow M_n(\mathbb{C})$ by setting $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r)(X)=A_1XA_1^*+\dots+A_rXA_r^*$. Then $\rho_2(A_1,\dots,A_r)^2=\rho(\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r))$.

It seems like $\rho_2(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ is the best way of generalizing the notion of a spectral radius to multiple operators if I had to choose one notion of a spectral radius.

Example 1: Let $\mathfrak{k}=(k_n)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of numbers in the set $\{1,\dots,r\}$. Then define $\rho_\mathfrak{k}(A_1,\dots,A_r)=\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\|A_{k_0}\dots A_{k_n}\|^{1/n}.$

Example 2: Define $\rho_{2,1}(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ to be the largest value of $(|z_1^2|+\dots+|z_r^2|)^{-1/2}$ where $I-(z_1A_1+\dots+z_rA_r)$ is not invertible. Then $\rho_{2,1}$ is another generalized notion of a spectral radius. More generally, if $\|\cdot\|$ is a complex norm on $\mathbb{C}^n$, then define $\rho_{2,\|\cdot\|}(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ to be the largest value of $\|(z_1,\dots,z_r)\|^{-1}$ where $I-(z_1A_1+\dots+z_rA_r)$ is not invertible.

If $\rho$ is a multi-spectral radius function, then it seems like $\rho$ should satisfy properties such as log-plurisubharmonicity, continuity, homogeneity of degree 1, invariance under joint-similarity, and a few mundane properties. For some particularly nice multi-spectral radius functions $\rho$, the value $\rho(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ only depends on the completely positive superoperator $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r)$. And if a multi-spectral radius function $\rho$ only depends on the superoperator $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r)$, then I would imagine that this multi-spectral radius easily generalizes to bounded operators between Hilbert spaces.

What would be a good axiomatization for multi-spectral radius functions? Is there an axiomatization for what is meant by a multi-spectrum of multiple operators? Clearly, one may consider the spectrum of $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ as a multi-spectrum of $A_1,\dots,A_r$. However, if $z_1,\dots,z_r$ are complex numbers with $|z_1|^2+\dots+|z_r|^2=1$ and where $\rho(z_1A_1+\dots+z_rA_r)$ is maximized, then the spectrum $\sigma(z_1A_1+\dots+z_rA_r)$ may be considered as another notion of a multi-spectrum.

I am interested in these generalized spectral radii since I have originally used a generalized notion of the spectral radius for cryptocurrency research and development, but such generalized spectral radii seem applicable for other machine learning applications.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not really an answer to the question, but you might be interested in looking up "joint spectral radius" and "generalized spectral radius". $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 19, 2023 at 2:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dixon & Müller investigate a generalisation of nilpotence which may be of interest: matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/sm/sm102/sm10237.pdf $\endgroup$
    – J.J. Green
    Commented Apr 19, 2023 at 9:32

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

I claim that there is a somewhat abstract notion of a multi-spectral radius and that there is probably an abstract theory behind this abstract notion. I will try to justify this abstract multi-spectral radius by showing that it captures the specific examples of multi-spectral radii that I have mentioned in the question and that the simplest examples of these multi-spectral radii are reasonable mathematical objects. With that being said, there are notions of a multi-spectral radius that I have not shown to fit within this framework, so more research on this topic is needed.

Suppose that $A$ is a complex Banach algebra. We say that a function $\rho:A^r\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ is a multi-spectral radius if there is an isometric embedding $\iota:A\rightarrow B$ along with a bounded subset $\mathcal{C}\subseteq B^r$ where

  1. $x_j\iota(a)=\iota(a)x_j$ whenever $a\in A,(x_1,\dots,x_r)\in\mathcal{C}$,

  2. if $(x_1,\dots,x_r)\in\mathcal{C}$, then $(\lambda_1x_1,\dots,\lambda_rx_r)\in\mathcal{C}$ whenever $|\lambda_j|=1$ for $1\leq j\leq r$, and

  3. $$\rho(a_1,\dots,a_r)=\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}(a_1,\dots,a_r)=\sup_{(x_1,\dots,x_r)\in\mathcal{C}}\rho(x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+x_r\iota(a_r))$$ whenever $a_1,\dots,a_r\in A$.

One may also want to require that if $(x_1,\dots,x_r)\in\mathcal{C}$, then $(\lambda_1x_1,\dots,\lambda_rx_r)\in\mathcal{C}$ whenever $|\lambda_j|=1$ for $1\leq j\leq r$, but this condition is not necessary. One can show that if $a,b\in B$, then the mapping from $\mathbb{C}$ to $[-\infty,\infty)$ defined by $\lambda\mapsto \ln(\rho(a+\lambda b))$ is subharmonic, so by the maximum principle,

$\max\{\rho(\lambda_1x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+\lambda_rx_r\iota(a_r)):|\lambda_1|=\dots=|\lambda_r|=1\}=\max\{\rho(\lambda_1x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+\lambda_rx_r\iota(a_r)):|\lambda_1|\leq 1,\dots,|\lambda_r|\leq 1\}.$

The $L_1$-spectral radius can be characterized in terms of our framework.

Theorem: $\rho_1(a_1,\dots,a_r)$ is the maximum value of $\rho(x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+x_r\iota(a_r))$ where $\iota:A\rightarrow B$ is an isometric embedding of Banach algebras, and $\|x_j\|\leq 1$ for $1\leq j\leq r$.

The proof of the above result is not too hard, and I have given a proof of the above result in this answer.

We say that a multi-spectral radius $\rho$ is unitary invariant if $\rho(a_1,\dots,a_r)=\rho(b_1,\dots,b_r)$ whenever there is an $n\times n$-unitary matrix $(u_{i,j})_{i,j}$ where $b_j=\sum_{i=1}^ru_{i,j}a_i$ for $1\leq j\leq r$. The following lemma is a standard result from quantum information theory.

Lemma: Suppose that $A_1,\dots,A_r,B_1,\dots,B_r\in M_n(\mathbb{C})$. Then $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r)=\Phi(B_1,\dots,B_r)$ if and only if there is an $r\times r$-unitary matrix $(u_{i,j})_{i,j}$ where $B_j=\sum_{i=1}^ru_{i,j}A_i$ for $1\leq j\leq r$.

Therefore, a multi-spectral radius $\rho:M_n(\mathbb{C})^r\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ is unitary invariant if and only if $\rho(A_1,\dots,A_r)=\rho(B_1,\dots,B_r)$ whenever $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r)=\Phi(B_1,\dots,B_r)$. The continuous unitary invariant multi-spectral radii are completely determined by the mapping $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r)\mapsto\rho(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ where $\Phi(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ is completely positive and trace preserving (a completely positive trace preserving map is known as a quantum channel).

The following easy lemmas show that how we can always upgrade a multi-spectral radius to a unitary invariant multi-spectral radius.

Lemma: Let $A$ be an algebra over a field $K$. Suppose that $(a_1,\dots,a_r),(b_1,\dots,b_r),(x_1,\dots,x_r),(y_1,\dots,y_r)\in A^r$. Let $(u_{i,j})_{i,j},(v_{i,j})_{i,j}\in M_r(K)$ be inverse matrices. Suppose that $a_k=\sum_{i=1}^ru_{i,k}b_i$ and $x_k=\sum_{j=1}^rv_{k,j}y_j$ for $1\leq k\leq r$. Then $$\sum_{k=1}^ra_kx_k=\sum_{i=1}^rb_iy_j.$$

Lemma: Suppose that $K$ is a field and $A$ is an algebra over $K$. Let $(u_{i,k})_{i,k}\in M_r(K)$. Suppose furthermore that $a_1,\dots,a_r,b_1,\dots,b_r,x_1,\dots,x_r,y_1,\dots,y_r\in A$ and $a_k=\sum_{i=1}^ru_{i,k}b_i$ for $1\leq k\leq r$ and $x_i=\sum_{k=1}^ru_{i,k}y_k$ for $1\leq k\leq r$. Then $\sum_{k=1}^ra_ky_k=\sum_{i=1}^rb_ix_i$.

Proposition: Let $A,B$ be Banach algebras. Let $\iota:A\rightarrow B$ be an isometric embedding. Suppose that $\mathcal{C}\subseteq B^r$ is a bounded subset with $x_j\iota(a)=\iota(a)x_j$ for $1\leq j\leq r$. Let $\mathcal{D}$ be the collection of all tuples $(y_1,\dots,y_r)$ where there is some $r\times r$-unitary matrix $(u_{i,j})_{i,j}$ and $(x_1,\dots,x_r)\in\mathcal{C}$ where $y_j=\sum_{i=1}^ru_{i,j}x_i$ for $1\leq i\leq r$. Then $$\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{D}}(x_1,\dots,x_r)=\sup\{\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}(\sum_ju_{1,j}x_j,\dots,\sum_ju_{r,j}x_j)\mid (u_{i,j})_{i,j}\in U(r)\}.$$

By using the following version of Holder's inequality that can be proven using the classical Holder's inequality, we can show that the $L_2$-spectral radius is a multi-spectral radius.

Theorem: $\rho(A_1\otimes B_1+\dots+A_r\otimes B_r)\leq \rho_p(A_1,\dots,A_r)\cdot\rho_q(B_1,\dots,B_r)$ whenever $p,q\in(1,\infty)$ and $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$.

As a consequence, if $d\geq n$ and $A_1,\dots,A_r\in M_n(\mathbb{C})$, then $$\rho_2(A_1,\dots,A_r)=\max_{(X_1,\dots,X_r)\in M_d(\mathbb{C})}\frac{\rho(A_1\otimes X_1+\dots+A_r\otimes X_r)}{\rho_2(X_1,\dots,X_r)}.$$

We have another construction that allows us to show that the $L_p$-spectral radius is a multi-spectral radius for $1\leq p<\infty$. Suppose now that $1\leq p<\infty$. Now, let $A$ be a Banach algebra. Let $x_1,\dots,x_r$ be non-commutating variables. Let $B$ be the collection of all sums of the form $\sum_{k=0}^n\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k\in\{1,\dots,r\}}a_{i_1,\dots,i_k}x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_k}$. We observe that for $p>1$ the Banach space $\ell^p$ indexed with the natural numbers cannot be endowed with a convolution operation since $(1/n)_{n=1}^{\infty}*(1/n)_{n=1}^{\infty}=(+\infty)_{n=1}^\infty$. We can give $B$ a norm that combines the $\ell^p$ and the $\ell^1$ norms that makes the completion of $B$ into a Banach algebra.

Then give $B$ the norm $$\|\sum_{k=0}^n\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k\in\{1,\dots,r\}}a_{i_1,\dots,i_k}x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_k}\|=\sum_{k=0}^n\|(a_{i_1,\dots,i_k})_{i_1,\dots,i_k}\|_p.$$ Give $B$ the multiplication defined by bilinearity along with the condition that $$(a\cdot x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_m})\cdot (b\cdot x_{j_1}\dots x_{j_n})= ab\cdot x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_m}x_{j_1}\dots x_{j_n}.$$ In other words, each element in $A$ commutes with each variable $x_j$, but we do not impose any other version of commutativity.

$B$ is submultiplicative: Let $$u=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_j\in\{1,\dots,r\}}a_{i_1,\dots,i_j}x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_j}$$ and let $$v=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_j\in\{1,\dots,r\}}a_{i_1,\dots,i_j}x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_j}$$ where only finitely many terms of these 'non-commutative polynomials' are non-zero.

Then

$$\|u\cdot v\|$$ $$=\|(\sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k\in\{1,\dots,r\}}a_{i_1,\dots,i_k}x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_k})\cdot (\sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k\in\{1,\dots,r\}}b_{i_1,\dots,i_k}x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_k})\|$$

$$=\|\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^k\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_j\in\{1,\dots,r\}}\sum_{i_{j+1},\dots,i_k}a_{i_1,\dots,i_j}b_{i_{j+1},\dots,i_k}x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_k}\|$$

$$\leq\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^k\|\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k\{1,\dots,r\}}a_{i_1,\dots,i_j}b_{i_{j+1},\dots,i_k}x_{i_1}\dots x_{i_k}\|$$

$$=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^k\|(a_{i_1,\dots,i_j}\cdot b_{i_{j+1},\dots, i_k})_{i_1,\dots,i_k\in\{1,\dots,r\}}\|_p$$ $$\leq\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^k\|(a_{i_1,\dots,i_j})_{i_1,\dots,i_j\in\{1,\dots,r\}}\|_p\cdot \|(b_{i_{j+1},\dots,i_k})_{i_{j+1},\dots,i_k\in\{1,\dots,r\}}\|_p$$ $$=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\|(a_{i_1,\dots,i_j})_{i_1,\dots,i_j\in\{1,\dots,r\}}\|_p\cdot\sum_{k=0}^\infty\|(b_{i_1,\dots,i_k})_{i_1,\dots,i_k\in\{1,\dots,r\}}\|_p=\|u\|\cdot\|v\|.$$

Therefore, the completion $\overline{B}$ of $B$ is a Banach algebra, and the original Banach algebra $A$ embeds into $\overline{B}$. In this case, we simply have $\rho_p(a_1,\dots,a_r)=\rho(a_1x_1+\dots+a_rx_r)$.

One should be able to generalize the above construction to most sensible notions of a multi-spectral radius.

Other examples:

In order for our notion of a multi-spectral radius to be sensible, one would expect that the functions $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$ would be coherent and interesting for the simplest possible cases of $\iota,\mathcal{C}$. For example, if $\iota:A\rightarrow A$ is the identity function and $1\leq p\leq\infty$, and $\mathcal{C}$ is the unit ball in $\mathbb{C}^r$ with respect to the $p$-norm, then one should expect for $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$ to be about as reasonable of a function as the $L_p$-spectral radii, and experimental computations indicate that this is indeed the case.

Define a mapping $F_{\iota,\mathcal{C},a_1,\dots,a_r}:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ by $F_{\iota,\mathcal{C},a_1,\dots,a_r}(x_1,\dots,x_r)= \rho(x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+x_r\iota(a_r))$. Experimental computations suggest that the local maxima $(x_1,\dots,x_r)$ for the function $F_{\iota,\mathcal{C},a_1,\dots,a_r}$ tend to resemble a sort of conjugate of $a_1,\dots,a_r$.

Let $\iota_n:M_n(\mathbb{C})\rightarrow M_n(\mathbb{C})$ be the identity mapping, and let $\mathcal{L}_{r;p}=\{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r)\in \mathbb{C}^r:\|(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r)\|_p=1\}$.

In some of my experiments with $A_1,\dots,A_r\in M_n(\mathbb{R})$ and in all of my experiments with $A_1,\dots,A_r\in M_n(\mathbb{C})$ that are Hermitian or real symmetric, when I computed $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r$ locally maximizes $F_{\iota_n,S_1^r,A_1,\dots,A_r}$, then one can find a $\lambda\in S_1$ and $e_1,\dots,e_r\in\{-1,1\}$ where $\lambda_j=\lambda\cdot e_j$ for $1\leq j\leq r$. A similar phenomenon holds when I locally maximized $F_{\iota_n,\mathcal{L}_{r;p},A_1,\dots,A_r}$ for $1\leq p\leq\infty$ even though this phenomenon seems to break down as $p$ gets close to $1$ and it holds better for Hermitian matrices than it does for non-symmetric real matrices.

My computer experiments indicate that if we locally maximize $F_{\iota,\mathcal{C},a_1,\dots,a_r}$, then as $\mathcal{C}$ better approximates $A$, the local maxima $(x_1,\dots,x_r)$ will become more and more similar to a conjugate version of $(a_1,\dots,a_r)$. On the other hand, if $\mathcal{C}$ is too complicated and has too much room to work with, then the local maxima $(x_1,\dots,x_r)$ will again poorly represent the elements in $A$. Therefore, in order to best represent the conjugates of the elements in $A$, it is best if $\mathcal{C}$ is a little bit simpler than $A$.

Let $\iota_{r;n,d}:M_n(\mathbb{C})\rightarrow M_{n\times d}(\mathbb{C})$ be the algebra homomorphism defined by $\iota_{r;n,d}(A)=A\otimes I_d$. Let $\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d}$ be the collection of all tuples $(I_n\otimes X_1,\dots,I_n\otimes X_r)$ where $\rho_2(X_1,\dots,X_r)=1$.

Theorem: Suppose that $A_1,\dots,A_r,B_1,\dots,B_r$ are $n\times n$-complex matrices where $A_1,\dots,A_r$ do not have a common invariant subspace. Suppose furthermore that $\rho_2(A_1,\dots,A_r)>0,\rho_2(B_1,\dots,B_r)>0$. Then $\rho(A_1\otimes B_1+\dots+A_r\otimes B_r)=\rho_2(A_1,\dots,A_r)\rho_2(B_1,\dots,B_r)$ if and only if there is some $\lambda$ and invertible $C$ where $B_j=\overline{\lambda\cdot C\cdot A_j\cdot C^{-1}}$ for $1\leq j\leq r$.

See this answer or this link for proofs that I gave of the above result.

From the above result, we see that if $I_n\otimes\overline{X_1},\dots,I_n\otimes\overline{X_r}\in M_{n\times n}(\mathbb{C})$ globally maximizes $F_{\iota_{r;n,n},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,n},A_1,\dots,A_r}$ and $A_1,\dots,A_r$ have no common invariant subspace, then there are $C,\lambda$ where $X_j=\lambda CA_jC^{-1}$ for $1\leq j\leq r.$

If $A_1,\dots,A_r\in M_n(\mathbb{C})$ does not have a common invariant subspace and $I_n\otimes\overline{X_1},\dots,I_n\otimes\overline{X_r}\in M_{n\times d}(\mathbb{C})$ locally maximizes $F_{\iota_{r;n,d},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d},A_1,\dots,A_r}$, then the matrices $X_1,\dots,X_r$ will (up-to-similarity and a constant factor) resemble $A_1,\dots,A_r$. For example, if $A_1,\dots,A_r$ are all real, complex symmetric, real symmetric, Hermitian, real positive semidefinite, complex positive semidefinite, quaternionic, rank $\leq k$, etc, and $I_n\otimes\overline{X_1},\dots,I_n\otimes\overline{X_r}$ locally maximizes $F_{\iota_{r;n,d},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d},A_1,\dots,A_r}$, then one will often be able to find a constant $\lambda$ and invertible matrix $C$ where $Y_j=\lambda CX_rC^{-1}$ satisfy those properties respectively. Furthermore, one will often be able to find matrices $R,S$ where $Y_j=RA_jS$ for $1\leq j\leq r$. In this case, $RS=I_d$ and $P=SR$ will be a (non-orthogonal) projection matrix. Define linear operators $F,G:M_n(\mathbb{C})\rightarrow M_n(\mathbb{C})$ by setting $F(X)=\sum_{k=1}^rA_kX(PA_kP)^*$ and $G(X)=\sum_{k=1}^rA_k^*XPA_kP$ (here $F=G^*$). Define $U_0=I_n,V_0=I_n$ and set $U_{n+1}=F(U_n)/\|F(U_n)\|,V_{n+1}=G(V_n)/\|G(V_n)\|$ for $n\geq 0$. Then $U_n,V_n$ experimentally converge to positive semidefinite matrices $U,V$, the dominant eigenvectors of $F$ and $G$. It seems like the strategy that the optimization algorithm chose for locally maximizing the spectral radius was to make the dominant eigenvalues of $F,G$ positive semidefinite matrices of rank $d$, but the best way to retain the positive semidefiniteness of the dominant eigenvectors of $F,G$ is to make the operators $PA_kP$ closely related to the operators $A_k$. It seems like the reason this strategy works is that in order for a spectral radius of a matrix $A$ to be large, the matrix $A$ should be designed to maximize a particular eigenvalue, and by making the operators $PA_kP$ related to $A_k$, we can maximize the spectral radius of $F,G$. Since the local maximum values of $F_{\iota_{r;n,d},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d},A_1,\dots,A_r}$ are closely related to the tuples $(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ themselves, I would regard the multi-spectral radius $\rho_{\iota_{r;n,d},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d}}$ as a legitimate generalization of the notion of the spectral radius to multiple operators which I call the $L_{2,d}$-spectral radius $\rho_{2,d}$.

Other multi-spectral radii $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$ are probably reasonably well-behaved, but more computer experiments are needed to verify whether other multi-spectral radii $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$ behave nearly as well as $\rho_{\iota_{r;n,d},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d}}$.

One can find more details on $\rho_{\iota_{r;n,d},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d}}$ at my site here, and here is another page where I apply $\rho_{\iota_{r;n,d},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d}}$ to evaluate cryptographic algorithms. I also gave some experimental observations of $\rho_{\iota_{r;n,d},\mathcal{C}_{r;n,d}}$ right here.

Multi-spectrum:

There seems to be a somewhat reasonable definition of a multi-spectrum of a collection of operators.

Suppose that $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$ is a multi-spectral radius. If $(x_1,\dots,x_r)\in\mathcal{C}$ and $\rho(x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+x_r\iota(a_r))=\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}(a_1,\dots,a_r)$, then we say that the spectrum of $x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+x_r\iota(a_r)$ is a multi-spectrum of $a_1,\dots,a_r$ with respect to the embedding $\iota$ and set $\mathcal{C}$.

Suppose that $(x_1,\dots,x_r)\in\mathcal{C}$ and for every neighborhood $U$ of $(x_1,\dots,x_r)$ with respect to the topology induced by the norm on $A$, then whenever $(y_1,\dots,y_r)\in U\cap\mathcal{C}$, we have $\rho(x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+x_r\iota(a_r))\geq\rho(y_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+y_r\iota(a_r))$; then we say that the spectrum of $x_1\iota(a_1)+\dots+x_r\iota(a_r)$ is a local multi-spectrum of $(a_1,\dots,a_r)$ with respect to the embedding $\iota$ and the set $\mathcal{C}$.

This notion of a multi-spectrum depends on the choice of $\iota,\mathcal{C}$ and not only on the multi-spectral radius $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$. For example, if $A_1,\dots,A_r$ are complex matrices with no common invariant subspace, then the multi-spectrum of $A_1,\dots,A_r$ with respect to $\iota_{r;n,n}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{r;n,n}$ is simply the spectrum of $A_1\otimes\overline{A_1}+\dots+A_r\otimes\overline{A_r}$. On the other hand, suppose that $x_1,\dots,x_r$ are the non-commuting variables in $\overline{B}$ where $\rho_p(A_1,\dots,A_r)=\rho(x_1\iota(A_1)+\dots+x_r\iota(A_r))$ for all matrices $A_1,\dots,A_r$ and suppose that $\mathcal{C}=\{(\lambda_1 x_1,\dots,\lambda_r x_r)\mid \lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r\in S_1\}$. Then a multi-spectrum of $(A_1,\dots,A_r)$ with respect to $\iota$ and $\mathcal{C}$ is the spectrum of $x_1A_1+\dots+x_rA_r$. If $\lambda$ is complex number with $|\lambda|=1$, then there is an automorphism $\phi$ of the Banach algebra $B$ with $\phi(x_1A_1+\dots+x_rA_r)=\lambda(x_1A_1+\dots+x_rA_r)$. Therefore, since $x_1A_1+\dots+x_rA_r$ has the same spectrum as $\lambda(x_1A_1+\dots+x_rA_r)$, there is some compact set $C\subseteq[0,\infty)$ with $\sigma(x_1A_1+\dots+x_rA_r)=\{\lambda t:|\lambda|=1,t\in C\}$.

Unresolved properties

If the set $\mathcal{C}$ is compact, then the function $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$ is automatically upper-semicontinuous. If $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$ is not upper-semicontinuous, then we can just take the upper-semicontinuous regularization of $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$, but the possible lack of upper-semicontinuity is a potential problem with the abstract theory that I am proposing. I do not know if we should require $\mathcal{C}$ to always be compact in order to make $\rho_{\iota,\mathcal{C}}$ always upper-semicontinuous.

So far, I have mainly experimental results about multi-spectral radii, but I would like for there to be more theorems about multi-spectral radii.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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