7
$\begingroup$

Let $A_1, A_2$ and $B_1, B_2$ be real symmetric matrices. Suppose $x A_1 + y B_1$ is cospectral with $x A_2 + y B_2$ for all real numbers $x, y$. Is it true that there exists a fixed orthgonoal matrix $Q$ independent of $x, y$ such that $(x A_1 + y B_1) Q = Q (x A_2 + y B_2)$?

I want to generalize Theorem 2 in Johnson, Charles R, and Morris Newman. “A Note on Cospectral Graphs.” Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B 28, no. 1 (February 1, 1980): 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(80)90058-1.

In the proof of Theorem 2, it says such a matrix can be concluded by a continuity-compactness argument.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ What is the origin of this question? "Prove that" modality suggests it is a homework or other problem from an existing source. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 8:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Apart from the homework issue, personally, I dislike "questions" which sound more like a command than a question. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 10:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov I have modified the question and explain the source. $\endgroup$
    – MMM
    Commented Oct 25 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ If I understand the cited paper correctly, it assumes a special structure of the $B$-matrix. (All entries should be equal to 1.) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker Yes, you are right. I want to generalize this result. And I conjecture the form above. Note that I drop the condition on row sum. The proof mentions a continuity-compactness argument, but I don't get it. $\endgroup$
    – MMM
    Commented Oct 26 at 1:14

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

This is false in general. Here is a counterexample: $$A_1 = A_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 6 \\ \end{pmatrix}$$

$$B_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2 & 2 \\ 2 & 1 & 2 \\ 2 & 2 & 11 \\ \end{pmatrix}$$

$$B_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} & -3 \\ \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} & 1 & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \\ -3 & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} & 11 \end{pmatrix}$$

You an easily verify with Mathematica that $\det(x A_1 + y B_1 + z I) = \det(x A_2 + y B_2 + z I)$, so the eigenvalues of $x A_1 + y B_1$ and $x A_2 + y B_2$ are the same for all $x,y$. You can also check that the only matrix $Q$ such that $A_1Q=QA_2$ and $B_1Q = QB_2$ is $Q=0$, i.e. the similarity matrices for $x A_1 + y B_1$ and $x A_2 + y B_2$ cannot be the same at $(x,y)=(1,0)$ and $(x,y)=(0,1)$.

The claim is true if both $B_1$ and $B_2$ have rank one, which is the case for the matrix in the linked paper.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ But it is not a counterexample: $Q$ exists. More over, for $2\times 2$ matrices the claim is easy to check $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 26 at 5:40
  • $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov It should be fixed now. $\endgroup$
    – N M
    Commented Oct 26 at 6:29
  • $\begingroup$ Can we rotate $A_2$ and $B_2$ so that $A_1=A_2$ after rotation? It would be more spectacular possibly. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 26 at 8:37
  • $\begingroup$ Good point, I assumed that would make $B_2$ messier, but it actually makes it much simpler. It would be even nicer to have a counterexample with all integer entries, but I didn't manage to find any. $\endgroup$
    – N M
    Commented Oct 26 at 9:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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