Is it possible to recognize when an endomorphism of a finite dimensional vector space is unitary for some...
$begingroup$
Let $V$ a finite dimensional vector space over $mathbb{C}$. Let $Tin GL(V)$.
Are there reasonable criteria for recognizing whether or not there is some inner product on $V$ w.r.t. to which $T$ is unitary? (equivalently, whether or not $T$ is similar to a unitary operator?)
linear-algebra inner-product-space
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $V$ a finite dimensional vector space over $mathbb{C}$. Let $Tin GL(V)$.
Are there reasonable criteria for recognizing whether or not there is some inner product on $V$ w.r.t. to which $T$ is unitary? (equivalently, whether or not $T$ is similar to a unitary operator?)
linear-algebra inner-product-space
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $V$ a finite dimensional vector space over $mathbb{C}$. Let $Tin GL(V)$.
Are there reasonable criteria for recognizing whether or not there is some inner product on $V$ w.r.t. to which $T$ is unitary? (equivalently, whether or not $T$ is similar to a unitary operator?)
linear-algebra inner-product-space
$endgroup$
Let $V$ a finite dimensional vector space over $mathbb{C}$. Let $Tin GL(V)$.
Are there reasonable criteria for recognizing whether or not there is some inner product on $V$ w.r.t. to which $T$ is unitary? (equivalently, whether or not $T$ is similar to a unitary operator?)
linear-algebra inner-product-space
linear-algebra inner-product-space
edited Jan 16 at 23:25
Arnaud D.
15.9k52443
15.9k52443
asked Jan 16 at 23:04
stupid_question_botstupid_question_bot
1,940415
1,940415
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Sure. An operator $T$ is unitary iff there is an orthonormal basis with respect to which $T$ is diagonal with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$. So, $Tin GL(V)$ is unitary for some inner product iff it is diagonalizable with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$ (just pick an inner product which makes a basis of eigenvectors orthonormal).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ be the standard Hermitian inner product on $V simeq Bbb C^n$, and let $(cdot, cdot)$ be any other inner product; that is, $(cdot, cdot)$ is a (Hermitian) bilinear form on $V$, obeying as it must the rules
$(x, alpha y) = alpha(x, y) = (bar alpha x, y), tag 1$
$(x, y + z) = (x, y) + (x, z), tag 2$
$(x, y) = overline{(y, x)}, tag 3$
$x ne 0 Longrightarrow 0 < (x, x) in Bbb R, tag 4$
$x = 0 Longrightarrow (x, x) = 0; tag 5$
we note that (2) and (3) yield
$(x + y, z) = overline{(z, x + y)} = overline{(z, x) + (z, y)} = overline{(z, x)} +overline{(z, y)}= (x, z) + (y,z); tag 6$
we see then that any such $(cdot, cdot)$ is additive in both arguments, hence, bilinear.
Given $(cdot, cdot)$ and $x in V$, we define a complex-linear functional $phi(x): V to Bbb C$ by
$phi(x):y to (x, y); tag 7$
it is well-known that such a functional satisfies
$phi(x)(y) = (x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle tag 8$
for some
$A(x) in V. tag 9$
It is also evident that $A$ itself is a linear map from $V$ to $V$, for
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = langle A(x + z), y rangle, tag{10}$
and also
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = (x, y) + (z, y)$
$= langle A(x), y rangle + langle A(z), y rangle = langle A(x) + A(z), y rangle; tag{11}$
since (10) and (11) hold for all $y in V$ we must have
$A(x + z) = A(x) + A(z); tag{12}$
likewise,
$langle A(alpha x), y rangle = (alpha x, y) = bar alpha (x, y) = bar alpha langle A(x), y rangle = langle alpha A(x), y rangle, tag{13}$
whence
$A(alpha x) = alpha A(x); tag{14}$
thus we see the linearity of
$A:V to V. tag{15}$
Now if $T$ is unitary with respect to $(cdot, cdot)$, we have
$langle A(x), y rangle = (x, y) = (Tx, Ty) = langle A(T(x)), Ty rangle = langle T^dagger AT(x), y rangle, tag{16}$
and thus
$T^dagger AT = A; tag{17}$
it should be remembered that $T^dagger$ in this equation is the standard Hermitian adjoint of $T$ defined with respect to the standard inner product $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ on $V$; we also observe that if these two inner products on $V$ are in fact the same, so that indeed
$A = I, tag{18}$
then (17) becomes
$T^dagger T = I, tag{19}$
and $T$ is an ordinary unitary operator on $V$.
It is now a simple matter to walk these steps back and conclude that if $A$ satisfies (17), and is non-singular, then $T$ is unitary with repect to the inner product
$(x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle. tag{20}$
We note that (17) is linear in $A$, and thus there is no difficulty in principle in finding a solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3076396%2fis-it-possible-to-recognize-when-an-endomorphism-of-a-finite-dimensional-vector%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Sure. An operator $T$ is unitary iff there is an orthonormal basis with respect to which $T$ is diagonal with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$. So, $Tin GL(V)$ is unitary for some inner product iff it is diagonalizable with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$ (just pick an inner product which makes a basis of eigenvectors orthonormal).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sure. An operator $T$ is unitary iff there is an orthonormal basis with respect to which $T$ is diagonal with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$. So, $Tin GL(V)$ is unitary for some inner product iff it is diagonalizable with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$ (just pick an inner product which makes a basis of eigenvectors orthonormal).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sure. An operator $T$ is unitary iff there is an orthonormal basis with respect to which $T$ is diagonal with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$. So, $Tin GL(V)$ is unitary for some inner product iff it is diagonalizable with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$ (just pick an inner product which makes a basis of eigenvectors orthonormal).
$endgroup$
Sure. An operator $T$ is unitary iff there is an orthonormal basis with respect to which $T$ is diagonal with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$. So, $Tin GL(V)$ is unitary for some inner product iff it is diagonalizable with eigenvalues of absolute value $1$ (just pick an inner product which makes a basis of eigenvectors orthonormal).
answered Jan 17 at 0:10
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
185k14214341
185k14214341
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ be the standard Hermitian inner product on $V simeq Bbb C^n$, and let $(cdot, cdot)$ be any other inner product; that is, $(cdot, cdot)$ is a (Hermitian) bilinear form on $V$, obeying as it must the rules
$(x, alpha y) = alpha(x, y) = (bar alpha x, y), tag 1$
$(x, y + z) = (x, y) + (x, z), tag 2$
$(x, y) = overline{(y, x)}, tag 3$
$x ne 0 Longrightarrow 0 < (x, x) in Bbb R, tag 4$
$x = 0 Longrightarrow (x, x) = 0; tag 5$
we note that (2) and (3) yield
$(x + y, z) = overline{(z, x + y)} = overline{(z, x) + (z, y)} = overline{(z, x)} +overline{(z, y)}= (x, z) + (y,z); tag 6$
we see then that any such $(cdot, cdot)$ is additive in both arguments, hence, bilinear.
Given $(cdot, cdot)$ and $x in V$, we define a complex-linear functional $phi(x): V to Bbb C$ by
$phi(x):y to (x, y); tag 7$
it is well-known that such a functional satisfies
$phi(x)(y) = (x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle tag 8$
for some
$A(x) in V. tag 9$
It is also evident that $A$ itself is a linear map from $V$ to $V$, for
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = langle A(x + z), y rangle, tag{10}$
and also
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = (x, y) + (z, y)$
$= langle A(x), y rangle + langle A(z), y rangle = langle A(x) + A(z), y rangle; tag{11}$
since (10) and (11) hold for all $y in V$ we must have
$A(x + z) = A(x) + A(z); tag{12}$
likewise,
$langle A(alpha x), y rangle = (alpha x, y) = bar alpha (x, y) = bar alpha langle A(x), y rangle = langle alpha A(x), y rangle, tag{13}$
whence
$A(alpha x) = alpha A(x); tag{14}$
thus we see the linearity of
$A:V to V. tag{15}$
Now if $T$ is unitary with respect to $(cdot, cdot)$, we have
$langle A(x), y rangle = (x, y) = (Tx, Ty) = langle A(T(x)), Ty rangle = langle T^dagger AT(x), y rangle, tag{16}$
and thus
$T^dagger AT = A; tag{17}$
it should be remembered that $T^dagger$ in this equation is the standard Hermitian adjoint of $T$ defined with respect to the standard inner product $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ on $V$; we also observe that if these two inner products on $V$ are in fact the same, so that indeed
$A = I, tag{18}$
then (17) becomes
$T^dagger T = I, tag{19}$
and $T$ is an ordinary unitary operator on $V$.
It is now a simple matter to walk these steps back and conclude that if $A$ satisfies (17), and is non-singular, then $T$ is unitary with repect to the inner product
$(x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle. tag{20}$
We note that (17) is linear in $A$, and thus there is no difficulty in principle in finding a solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ be the standard Hermitian inner product on $V simeq Bbb C^n$, and let $(cdot, cdot)$ be any other inner product; that is, $(cdot, cdot)$ is a (Hermitian) bilinear form on $V$, obeying as it must the rules
$(x, alpha y) = alpha(x, y) = (bar alpha x, y), tag 1$
$(x, y + z) = (x, y) + (x, z), tag 2$
$(x, y) = overline{(y, x)}, tag 3$
$x ne 0 Longrightarrow 0 < (x, x) in Bbb R, tag 4$
$x = 0 Longrightarrow (x, x) = 0; tag 5$
we note that (2) and (3) yield
$(x + y, z) = overline{(z, x + y)} = overline{(z, x) + (z, y)} = overline{(z, x)} +overline{(z, y)}= (x, z) + (y,z); tag 6$
we see then that any such $(cdot, cdot)$ is additive in both arguments, hence, bilinear.
Given $(cdot, cdot)$ and $x in V$, we define a complex-linear functional $phi(x): V to Bbb C$ by
$phi(x):y to (x, y); tag 7$
it is well-known that such a functional satisfies
$phi(x)(y) = (x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle tag 8$
for some
$A(x) in V. tag 9$
It is also evident that $A$ itself is a linear map from $V$ to $V$, for
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = langle A(x + z), y rangle, tag{10}$
and also
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = (x, y) + (z, y)$
$= langle A(x), y rangle + langle A(z), y rangle = langle A(x) + A(z), y rangle; tag{11}$
since (10) and (11) hold for all $y in V$ we must have
$A(x + z) = A(x) + A(z); tag{12}$
likewise,
$langle A(alpha x), y rangle = (alpha x, y) = bar alpha (x, y) = bar alpha langle A(x), y rangle = langle alpha A(x), y rangle, tag{13}$
whence
$A(alpha x) = alpha A(x); tag{14}$
thus we see the linearity of
$A:V to V. tag{15}$
Now if $T$ is unitary with respect to $(cdot, cdot)$, we have
$langle A(x), y rangle = (x, y) = (Tx, Ty) = langle A(T(x)), Ty rangle = langle T^dagger AT(x), y rangle, tag{16}$
and thus
$T^dagger AT = A; tag{17}$
it should be remembered that $T^dagger$ in this equation is the standard Hermitian adjoint of $T$ defined with respect to the standard inner product $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ on $V$; we also observe that if these two inner products on $V$ are in fact the same, so that indeed
$A = I, tag{18}$
then (17) becomes
$T^dagger T = I, tag{19}$
and $T$ is an ordinary unitary operator on $V$.
It is now a simple matter to walk these steps back and conclude that if $A$ satisfies (17), and is non-singular, then $T$ is unitary with repect to the inner product
$(x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle. tag{20}$
We note that (17) is linear in $A$, and thus there is no difficulty in principle in finding a solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ be the standard Hermitian inner product on $V simeq Bbb C^n$, and let $(cdot, cdot)$ be any other inner product; that is, $(cdot, cdot)$ is a (Hermitian) bilinear form on $V$, obeying as it must the rules
$(x, alpha y) = alpha(x, y) = (bar alpha x, y), tag 1$
$(x, y + z) = (x, y) + (x, z), tag 2$
$(x, y) = overline{(y, x)}, tag 3$
$x ne 0 Longrightarrow 0 < (x, x) in Bbb R, tag 4$
$x = 0 Longrightarrow (x, x) = 0; tag 5$
we note that (2) and (3) yield
$(x + y, z) = overline{(z, x + y)} = overline{(z, x) + (z, y)} = overline{(z, x)} +overline{(z, y)}= (x, z) + (y,z); tag 6$
we see then that any such $(cdot, cdot)$ is additive in both arguments, hence, bilinear.
Given $(cdot, cdot)$ and $x in V$, we define a complex-linear functional $phi(x): V to Bbb C$ by
$phi(x):y to (x, y); tag 7$
it is well-known that such a functional satisfies
$phi(x)(y) = (x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle tag 8$
for some
$A(x) in V. tag 9$
It is also evident that $A$ itself is a linear map from $V$ to $V$, for
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = langle A(x + z), y rangle, tag{10}$
and also
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = (x, y) + (z, y)$
$= langle A(x), y rangle + langle A(z), y rangle = langle A(x) + A(z), y rangle; tag{11}$
since (10) and (11) hold for all $y in V$ we must have
$A(x + z) = A(x) + A(z); tag{12}$
likewise,
$langle A(alpha x), y rangle = (alpha x, y) = bar alpha (x, y) = bar alpha langle A(x), y rangle = langle alpha A(x), y rangle, tag{13}$
whence
$A(alpha x) = alpha A(x); tag{14}$
thus we see the linearity of
$A:V to V. tag{15}$
Now if $T$ is unitary with respect to $(cdot, cdot)$, we have
$langle A(x), y rangle = (x, y) = (Tx, Ty) = langle A(T(x)), Ty rangle = langle T^dagger AT(x), y rangle, tag{16}$
and thus
$T^dagger AT = A; tag{17}$
it should be remembered that $T^dagger$ in this equation is the standard Hermitian adjoint of $T$ defined with respect to the standard inner product $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ on $V$; we also observe that if these two inner products on $V$ are in fact the same, so that indeed
$A = I, tag{18}$
then (17) becomes
$T^dagger T = I, tag{19}$
and $T$ is an ordinary unitary operator on $V$.
It is now a simple matter to walk these steps back and conclude that if $A$ satisfies (17), and is non-singular, then $T$ is unitary with repect to the inner product
$(x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle. tag{20}$
We note that (17) is linear in $A$, and thus there is no difficulty in principle in finding a solution.
$endgroup$
Let $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ be the standard Hermitian inner product on $V simeq Bbb C^n$, and let $(cdot, cdot)$ be any other inner product; that is, $(cdot, cdot)$ is a (Hermitian) bilinear form on $V$, obeying as it must the rules
$(x, alpha y) = alpha(x, y) = (bar alpha x, y), tag 1$
$(x, y + z) = (x, y) + (x, z), tag 2$
$(x, y) = overline{(y, x)}, tag 3$
$x ne 0 Longrightarrow 0 < (x, x) in Bbb R, tag 4$
$x = 0 Longrightarrow (x, x) = 0; tag 5$
we note that (2) and (3) yield
$(x + y, z) = overline{(z, x + y)} = overline{(z, x) + (z, y)} = overline{(z, x)} +overline{(z, y)}= (x, z) + (y,z); tag 6$
we see then that any such $(cdot, cdot)$ is additive in both arguments, hence, bilinear.
Given $(cdot, cdot)$ and $x in V$, we define a complex-linear functional $phi(x): V to Bbb C$ by
$phi(x):y to (x, y); tag 7$
it is well-known that such a functional satisfies
$phi(x)(y) = (x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle tag 8$
for some
$A(x) in V. tag 9$
It is also evident that $A$ itself is a linear map from $V$ to $V$, for
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = langle A(x + z), y rangle, tag{10}$
and also
$phi(x + z)(y) = (x + z, y) = (x, y) + (z, y)$
$= langle A(x), y rangle + langle A(z), y rangle = langle A(x) + A(z), y rangle; tag{11}$
since (10) and (11) hold for all $y in V$ we must have
$A(x + z) = A(x) + A(z); tag{12}$
likewise,
$langle A(alpha x), y rangle = (alpha x, y) = bar alpha (x, y) = bar alpha langle A(x), y rangle = langle alpha A(x), y rangle, tag{13}$
whence
$A(alpha x) = alpha A(x); tag{14}$
thus we see the linearity of
$A:V to V. tag{15}$
Now if $T$ is unitary with respect to $(cdot, cdot)$, we have
$langle A(x), y rangle = (x, y) = (Tx, Ty) = langle A(T(x)), Ty rangle = langle T^dagger AT(x), y rangle, tag{16}$
and thus
$T^dagger AT = A; tag{17}$
it should be remembered that $T^dagger$ in this equation is the standard Hermitian adjoint of $T$ defined with respect to the standard inner product $langle cdot, cdot rangle$ on $V$; we also observe that if these two inner products on $V$ are in fact the same, so that indeed
$A = I, tag{18}$
then (17) becomes
$T^dagger T = I, tag{19}$
and $T$ is an ordinary unitary operator on $V$.
It is now a simple matter to walk these steps back and conclude that if $A$ satisfies (17), and is non-singular, then $T$ is unitary with repect to the inner product
$(x, y) = langle A(x), y rangle. tag{20}$
We note that (17) is linear in $A$, and thus there is no difficulty in principle in finding a solution.
edited Jan 18 at 5:19
answered Jan 18 at 5:07
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
46k23066
46k23066
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3076396%2fis-it-possible-to-recognize-when-an-endomorphism-of-a-finite-dimensional-vector%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown