Equivalency of simultaneously block diagonalizing two matrices and finding invariant subspaces












1












$begingroup$


@Victorliu specified in a comment for this question: "Block diagonalizing two matrices simultaneously is equivalent to finding invariant subspaces common to both matrices". There are two questions regarding this question:




  1. I am curious and want to know more in details about this equivalency. Is there any reference about this theorem/equivalency?

  2. There is a solution for this question by @JoonasIlmavirta, however, it is not that clear for finding such invariant subspaces. Would you please give more elaboration or give any reference about that.

  3. I am interested in reading papers (or any reference) about block diagonalization of a matrix in details. It would be great if you can suggest any reference.


Thanks.






linear-algebra vector-spaces linear-transformations numerical-linear-algebra







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    @Victorliu specified in a comment for this question: "Block diagonalizing two matrices simultaneously is equivalent to finding invariant subspaces common to both matrices". There are two questions regarding this question:




    1. I am curious and want to know more in details about this equivalency. Is there any reference about this theorem/equivalency?

    2. There is a solution for this question by @JoonasIlmavirta, however, it is not that clear for finding such invariant subspaces. Would you please give more elaboration or give any reference about that.

    3. I am interested in reading papers (or any reference) about block diagonalization of a matrix in details. It would be great if you can suggest any reference.


    Thanks.






    linear-algebra vector-spaces linear-transformations numerical-linear-algebra







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1


      1



      $begingroup$


      @Victorliu specified in a comment for this question: "Block diagonalizing two matrices simultaneously is equivalent to finding invariant subspaces common to both matrices". There are two questions regarding this question:




      1. I am curious and want to know more in details about this equivalency. Is there any reference about this theorem/equivalency?

      2. There is a solution for this question by @JoonasIlmavirta, however, it is not that clear for finding such invariant subspaces. Would you please give more elaboration or give any reference about that.

      3. I am interested in reading papers (or any reference) about block diagonalization of a matrix in details. It would be great if you can suggest any reference.


      Thanks.






      linear-algebra vector-spaces linear-transformations numerical-linear-algebra







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      @Victorliu specified in a comment for this question: "Block diagonalizing two matrices simultaneously is equivalent to finding invariant subspaces common to both matrices". There are two questions regarding this question:




      1. I am curious and want to know more in details about this equivalency. Is there any reference about this theorem/equivalency?

      2. There is a solution for this question by @JoonasIlmavirta, however, it is not that clear for finding such invariant subspaces. Would you please give more elaboration or give any reference about that.

      3. I am interested in reading papers (or any reference) about block diagonalization of a matrix in details. It would be great if you can suggest any reference.


      Thanks.






      linear-algebra vector-spaces linear-transformations numerical-linear-algebra




      linear-algebra vector-spaces linear-transformations numerical-linear-algebra






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 7 at 2:47







      Amin

















      asked Jan 7 at 2:25









      AminAmin

      1,3281719




      1,3281719






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          I don't know of a reference, but here is a way to see the equivalence.
          When you write a matrix in block form, you decompose the underlying space(s) as a direct sum.
          You can also see writing a matrix in a given basis this way; the summands are one-dimensional, corresponding to the chosen basis vectors.



          If the domain is $mathbb R^n=D_1oplus D_2oplusdotsoplus D_k$ and the target is $mathbb R^l=T_1oplusdotsoplus T_m$ (as direct sums of linearly independent subspaces), then an $ltimes n$ matrix $A$ can be written as a $mtimes k$ block matrix.
          Since zero-dimensional spaces $D_i$ or $T_i$ should be excluded (they're just silly), we have $lgeq m$ and $ngeq k$ but there are no other constraints.



          It makes sense to say that the matrix is $A$ block-diagonal if $k=m$ and all off-diagonal blocks are zero.
          Observe that $k=m$ does not imply $n=l$.
          Considering $A$ as a mapping $mathbb R^ntomathbb R^l$, this is the same as requiring that $A(D_i)subset T_i$ for all $i$.
          If you had $A(D_i)notsubset T_i$, then $A(D_i)cap T_j$ would be non-zero for some $ineq j$, meaning that the block at $(j,i)$ is non-zero.



          If you have a square matrix, it is often most convenient to choose $D_i=T_i$ for every $i$, and this is what is typically meant by a block matrix.
          (Observe that if you change the basis of a matrix, you apply the same change on both sides of the matrix.)
          In this block structure block-diagonality means that $A(D_i)subset D_i$, which means that the space $D_i$ is an invariant subspace for $A$.
          That is, block-diagonialization amounts to finding subspaces $D_i$ so that the original space is the direct sum of them and $A(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.



          If you have two matrices that are simultaneously block-diagonal, they both have to satisfy the block-diagonal assumption in the same basis.
          (Simultaneity means precisely that the same basis works for both.)
          That is, two $ntimes n$ matrices $A$ and $B$ are simultaneously block-diagonalized by the subspaces $D_1oplusdots D_k$ if and only if all the spaces are invariant for both:
          $A(D_i)subset D_i$ and $B(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3064597%2fequivalency-of-simultaneously-block-diagonalizing-two-matrices-and-finding-invar%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            1












            $begingroup$

            I don't know of a reference, but here is a way to see the equivalence.
            When you write a matrix in block form, you decompose the underlying space(s) as a direct sum.
            You can also see writing a matrix in a given basis this way; the summands are one-dimensional, corresponding to the chosen basis vectors.



            If the domain is $mathbb R^n=D_1oplus D_2oplusdotsoplus D_k$ and the target is $mathbb R^l=T_1oplusdotsoplus T_m$ (as direct sums of linearly independent subspaces), then an $ltimes n$ matrix $A$ can be written as a $mtimes k$ block matrix.
            Since zero-dimensional spaces $D_i$ or $T_i$ should be excluded (they're just silly), we have $lgeq m$ and $ngeq k$ but there are no other constraints.



            It makes sense to say that the matrix is $A$ block-diagonal if $k=m$ and all off-diagonal blocks are zero.
            Observe that $k=m$ does not imply $n=l$.
            Considering $A$ as a mapping $mathbb R^ntomathbb R^l$, this is the same as requiring that $A(D_i)subset T_i$ for all $i$.
            If you had $A(D_i)notsubset T_i$, then $A(D_i)cap T_j$ would be non-zero for some $ineq j$, meaning that the block at $(j,i)$ is non-zero.



            If you have a square matrix, it is often most convenient to choose $D_i=T_i$ for every $i$, and this is what is typically meant by a block matrix.
            (Observe that if you change the basis of a matrix, you apply the same change on both sides of the matrix.)
            In this block structure block-diagonality means that $A(D_i)subset D_i$, which means that the space $D_i$ is an invariant subspace for $A$.
            That is, block-diagonialization amounts to finding subspaces $D_i$ so that the original space is the direct sum of them and $A(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.



            If you have two matrices that are simultaneously block-diagonal, they both have to satisfy the block-diagonal assumption in the same basis.
            (Simultaneity means precisely that the same basis works for both.)
            That is, two $ntimes n$ matrices $A$ and $B$ are simultaneously block-diagonalized by the subspaces $D_1oplusdots D_k$ if and only if all the spaces are invariant for both:
            $A(D_i)subset D_i$ and $B(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              I don't know of a reference, but here is a way to see the equivalence.
              When you write a matrix in block form, you decompose the underlying space(s) as a direct sum.
              You can also see writing a matrix in a given basis this way; the summands are one-dimensional, corresponding to the chosen basis vectors.



              If the domain is $mathbb R^n=D_1oplus D_2oplusdotsoplus D_k$ and the target is $mathbb R^l=T_1oplusdotsoplus T_m$ (as direct sums of linearly independent subspaces), then an $ltimes n$ matrix $A$ can be written as a $mtimes k$ block matrix.
              Since zero-dimensional spaces $D_i$ or $T_i$ should be excluded (they're just silly), we have $lgeq m$ and $ngeq k$ but there are no other constraints.



              It makes sense to say that the matrix is $A$ block-diagonal if $k=m$ and all off-diagonal blocks are zero.
              Observe that $k=m$ does not imply $n=l$.
              Considering $A$ as a mapping $mathbb R^ntomathbb R^l$, this is the same as requiring that $A(D_i)subset T_i$ for all $i$.
              If you had $A(D_i)notsubset T_i$, then $A(D_i)cap T_j$ would be non-zero for some $ineq j$, meaning that the block at $(j,i)$ is non-zero.



              If you have a square matrix, it is often most convenient to choose $D_i=T_i$ for every $i$, and this is what is typically meant by a block matrix.
              (Observe that if you change the basis of a matrix, you apply the same change on both sides of the matrix.)
              In this block structure block-diagonality means that $A(D_i)subset D_i$, which means that the space $D_i$ is an invariant subspace for $A$.
              That is, block-diagonialization amounts to finding subspaces $D_i$ so that the original space is the direct sum of them and $A(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.



              If you have two matrices that are simultaneously block-diagonal, they both have to satisfy the block-diagonal assumption in the same basis.
              (Simultaneity means precisely that the same basis works for both.)
              That is, two $ntimes n$ matrices $A$ and $B$ are simultaneously block-diagonalized by the subspaces $D_1oplusdots D_k$ if and only if all the spaces are invariant for both:
              $A(D_i)subset D_i$ and $B(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                I don't know of a reference, but here is a way to see the equivalence.
                When you write a matrix in block form, you decompose the underlying space(s) as a direct sum.
                You can also see writing a matrix in a given basis this way; the summands are one-dimensional, corresponding to the chosen basis vectors.



                If the domain is $mathbb R^n=D_1oplus D_2oplusdotsoplus D_k$ and the target is $mathbb R^l=T_1oplusdotsoplus T_m$ (as direct sums of linearly independent subspaces), then an $ltimes n$ matrix $A$ can be written as a $mtimes k$ block matrix.
                Since zero-dimensional spaces $D_i$ or $T_i$ should be excluded (they're just silly), we have $lgeq m$ and $ngeq k$ but there are no other constraints.



                It makes sense to say that the matrix is $A$ block-diagonal if $k=m$ and all off-diagonal blocks are zero.
                Observe that $k=m$ does not imply $n=l$.
                Considering $A$ as a mapping $mathbb R^ntomathbb R^l$, this is the same as requiring that $A(D_i)subset T_i$ for all $i$.
                If you had $A(D_i)notsubset T_i$, then $A(D_i)cap T_j$ would be non-zero for some $ineq j$, meaning that the block at $(j,i)$ is non-zero.



                If you have a square matrix, it is often most convenient to choose $D_i=T_i$ for every $i$, and this is what is typically meant by a block matrix.
                (Observe that if you change the basis of a matrix, you apply the same change on both sides of the matrix.)
                In this block structure block-diagonality means that $A(D_i)subset D_i$, which means that the space $D_i$ is an invariant subspace for $A$.
                That is, block-diagonialization amounts to finding subspaces $D_i$ so that the original space is the direct sum of them and $A(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.



                If you have two matrices that are simultaneously block-diagonal, they both have to satisfy the block-diagonal assumption in the same basis.
                (Simultaneity means precisely that the same basis works for both.)
                That is, two $ntimes n$ matrices $A$ and $B$ are simultaneously block-diagonalized by the subspaces $D_1oplusdots D_k$ if and only if all the spaces are invariant for both:
                $A(D_i)subset D_i$ and $B(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                I don't know of a reference, but here is a way to see the equivalence.
                When you write a matrix in block form, you decompose the underlying space(s) as a direct sum.
                You can also see writing a matrix in a given basis this way; the summands are one-dimensional, corresponding to the chosen basis vectors.



                If the domain is $mathbb R^n=D_1oplus D_2oplusdotsoplus D_k$ and the target is $mathbb R^l=T_1oplusdotsoplus T_m$ (as direct sums of linearly independent subspaces), then an $ltimes n$ matrix $A$ can be written as a $mtimes k$ block matrix.
                Since zero-dimensional spaces $D_i$ or $T_i$ should be excluded (they're just silly), we have $lgeq m$ and $ngeq k$ but there are no other constraints.



                It makes sense to say that the matrix is $A$ block-diagonal if $k=m$ and all off-diagonal blocks are zero.
                Observe that $k=m$ does not imply $n=l$.
                Considering $A$ as a mapping $mathbb R^ntomathbb R^l$, this is the same as requiring that $A(D_i)subset T_i$ for all $i$.
                If you had $A(D_i)notsubset T_i$, then $A(D_i)cap T_j$ would be non-zero for some $ineq j$, meaning that the block at $(j,i)$ is non-zero.



                If you have a square matrix, it is often most convenient to choose $D_i=T_i$ for every $i$, and this is what is typically meant by a block matrix.
                (Observe that if you change the basis of a matrix, you apply the same change on both sides of the matrix.)
                In this block structure block-diagonality means that $A(D_i)subset D_i$, which means that the space $D_i$ is an invariant subspace for $A$.
                That is, block-diagonialization amounts to finding subspaces $D_i$ so that the original space is the direct sum of them and $A(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.



                If you have two matrices that are simultaneously block-diagonal, they both have to satisfy the block-diagonal assumption in the same basis.
                (Simultaneity means precisely that the same basis works for both.)
                That is, two $ntimes n$ matrices $A$ and $B$ are simultaneously block-diagonalized by the subspaces $D_1oplusdots D_k$ if and only if all the spaces are invariant for both:
                $A(D_i)subset D_i$ and $B(D_i)subset D_i$ for all $i$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 7 at 10:20









                Joonas IlmavirtaJoonas Ilmavirta

                20.6k94282




                20.6k94282






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3064597%2fequivalency-of-simultaneously-block-diagonalizing-two-matrices-and-finding-invar%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

                    Image
                    28 6 $begingroup$ Per the Font of Magic feature, sorcerer can use Flexible Casting to create 5th-level spell slots at level 7, even though they are not typically available until level 9. You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot of [5th level is 7] If such a sorcerer levels up while still having this 5th-level spell slot, can they choose a 5th-level spell as the spell they gain upon levelling up? The Spellcasting feature states: Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
                    Read more

                    Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

                    Image
                    up vote 13 down vote favorite 1 After the 2018 errata, the disintegrate spell description now reads: A creature targeted by this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points. If you were to polymorph an enemy into a rat and then disintegrate it, would the enemy be disintegrated or would it just return to its original form? I know that for Druids, it’s not an instant kill anymore, but is this the case for polymorph as well? dnd-5e spells polymorph errata share | improve this question edited 18 hours ago
                    Read more

                    A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$

                    Image
                    3 3 $begingroup$ Recently, I saw a construction of topological invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$ with $ngeq 2$ : $$ N=frac{1}{24pi^2}int_{S^3} d^3x epsilon^{ijk} Tr[(U^{-1}partial_{x_i}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_j}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_k}U)] , $$ where $Uin U(n)$ depends on $boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)in S^3$ , $epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $i,j,k=1,2,3$ , and the duplicated indexes are summed over. It is claimed that $N$ is an integer, but why? Update 02/02/2019 I think I got an argument for $n=2$ . In this case, $U=e^{i varphi} q$ with $qin SU(2)$ . Due to the trace and the Levi-Civita symbol in $N$ , $varphi$ does not contribute to $N$ . As $Tr[q^{dagger}partial_i q]=0$ and $(q^{dagger}partial_i q)^{dagger}=-q^{dagger}partial_i q$ , $q^{dagger}partial_i q$ in geneeral has the form $q^{dagger}partia
                    Read more