- #1

- 612

- 13

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Adel Makram
- Start date

- #1

- 612

- 13

- #2

blue_leaf77

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,637

- 785

- #3

- 612

- 13

U and A are square matrices of the same rank, so UA is a square matrix too and it should be invertible. But even in this case, how to find A and its inverse from UA? In other words, can we decompose UA into U and A?

- #4

blue_leaf77

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,637

- 785

I will give you a hint, what is the transpose conjugate of ##UA##?can we decompose UA into U and A?

- #5

- 612

- 13

What if we find that UA is invertiabe, can we decompose it?Being square does not guarantee that it's invertible.

- #6

blue_leaf77

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,637

- 785

- #7

- 612

- 13

I appreciate your contribution to answer but frankly I have no clear idea about your words. My question is clear from the beginning and still I have no answer on it, will I be able to decompose UA into U and A where is U is a unique unitary and A a unique diagonal or no?

- #8

fresh_42

Mentor

- 15,710

- 13,964

@blue_leaf77's question in post #4 contains the answer. What can you say about ##(UA)^\dagger = \overline{(UA)}^\tau## and what happens, if you multiply this by ##UA##?I appreciate your contribution to answer but frankly I have no clear idea about your words. My question is clear from the beginning and still I have no answer on it, will I be able to decompose UA into U and A where is U is a unique unitary and A a unique diagonal or no?

- #9

- 612

- 13

We will get ##A^2## because ##U^TU=1##, right@blue_leaf77's question in post #4 contains the answer. What can you say about ##(UA)^\dagger = \overline{(UA)}^\tau## and what happens, if you multiply this by ##UA##?

- #10

fresh_42

Mentor

- 15,710

- 13,964

If you interpret ##A^2=\overline{A}A##, then yes. You haven't said that ##A## is a real diagonal matrix, so ##\overline{A} \neq A## in general. This still doesn't give you a unique description of the diagonal elements, but some additional information. Maybe this can be used in ##1=(UA)(UA)^{-1}##.We will get ##A^2## because ##U^TU=1##, right

- #11

- 612

- 13

But why is A, if it is real diagonal, not unique? If I get AIf you interpret ##A^2=\overline{A}A##, then yes. You haven't said that ##A## is a real diagonal matrix, so ##\overline{A} \neq A## in general. This still doesn't give you a unique description of the diagonal elements, but some additional information. Maybe this can be used in ##1=(UA)(UA)^{-1}##.

- #12

fresh_42

Mentor

- 15,710

- 13,964

Again, you have only said ##A=diag(a_1,\ldots,a_n)##, so ##a_i \in \mathbb{C}## and ##(UA)^\dagger \cdot (UA)= \overline{A}\cdot A## is all you can conclude. Esp. this gives you ##n## equations ##c_j=\overline{a}_j \cdot a_j## which cannot be solved uniquely without additional information. Even in the real case there are two solutions for each ##j\, : \,\pm \, a_j##But why is A, if it is real diagonal, not unique? If I get A^{2}then each diagonal element in A is ##\sqrt {A^2}##.

- #13

- 612

- 13

So in special case where all elements of A are real and positive, then no additional information is required and A is solved.Again, you have only said ##A=diag(a_1,\ldots,a_n)##, so ##a_i \in \mathbb{C}## and ##(UA)^\dagger \cdot (UA)= \overline{A}\cdot A## is all you can conclude. Esp. this gives you ##n## equations ##c_j=\overline{a}_j \cdot a_j## which cannot be solved uniquely without additional information. Even in the real case there are two solutions for each ##j\, : \,\pm \, a_j##

- #14

fresh_42

Mentor

- 15,710

- 13,964

Yes.So in special case where all elements of A are real and positive, then no additional information is required and A is solved.

If all diagonal elements of ##A=diag(a_j)## are positive real numbers, then you can compute ##\overline{(UA)}^\tau## if you know ##UA##, then multiply both to ##\overline{(UA)}^\tau\cdot (UA)=\overline{A}^\tau \cdot A=A \cdot A = diag(a_j^2)## which has to be diagonal, if the given conditions for ##U## and ##A## are correct. Thus you have ##n## equations ##c_j :=\left(\overline{(UA)}^\tau(UA) \right)_{jj}=a_j^2## which determine ##A## and with it ##A^{-1}## and ##U=(UA)A^{-1}##.

- #15

- 22,129

- 3,298

Yes.

If all diagonal elements of ##A=diag(a_j)## are positive real numbers, then you can compute ##\overline{(UA)}^\tau## if you know ##UA##, then multiply both to ##\overline{(UA)}^\tau\cdot (UA)=\overline{A}^\tau \cdot A=A \cdot A = diag(a_j^2)## which has to be diagonal, if the given conditions for ##U## and ##A## are correct. Thus you have ##n## equations ##c_j :=\left(\overline{(UA)}^\tau(UA) \right)_{jj}=a_j^2## which determine ##A## and with it ##A^{-1}## and ##U=(UA)A^{-1}##.

Or more generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_decomposition

Share: