5

Let $A=(a_{ij})$ be a real matrix. Consider the $(n+1)\times (n+1)$ bordered matrix $\tilde A= (a'_{ij})$ where $\tilde a_{ij} = a_{ij}$ for $1\le i,j\le n$, $a'_{ij} = 1- \delta_{ij}$ if $\max(i,j) = n+1$. For instance, if $(a_{ij})$ is $3\times 3$, then the bordered matrix $\tilde A$ is

$$\tilde A=\left(\begin{matrix} a_{11}& a_{12} & a_{13}& 1 \\ a_{21}&a_{22}&a_{23}&1 \\a_{31}&a_{32}& a_{33}& 1\\1&1&1&0\end{matrix} \right)$$

If $A$ is symmetric, then so is $\tilde A$.

Consider the function from real symmetric matrices to real numbers $$\Delta\colon A\mapsto \det \tilde A$$

Note that $\Delta$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $n-1$ in the entries of $A$.

I would like to show that if $A$ is a real symmetric matrix -with $\Delta(A)=0$, then for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a symmetric matrix $A'$, $\|A'- A\|< \epsilon$, and $\Delta (A')>0$.

Notes:

This is related to my previous question. There, the problem was: $\det A= 0$, find $A'$ close to $A$, with $\det A'>0$. @Martin R: showed us how to find a ray $A + \epsilon L$, $\epsilon>0$ on which the function $\det$ is $>0$. Moreover, if $A$ is symmetric, then $L$ can be chosen to be symmetric too.

Why I am interested in this problem: Consider $A$ a symmetric matrix that is positive definite on the subspace $\sum x_i = 0$. Then there exist $\lambda> 0$ such that the matrix $A + \lambda J$ is positive definite ( $J$ the matrix with all $1$ -- see this question). Consider a principal minor of the matrix $A + \lambda J$. It will be a polynomial of degree $1$ ( since $J$ is or rank $1$) in $\lambda$. The leading term must be $\ge 0$. Now the leading term is exactly $- \times$ one of the determinant in the problem. Moreover, this inequality is true for all $A'$ symmetric, close to $A$ ( since $A_{|V}$ positive definite then same is true for $A'$ close to $A$). Therefore ( based on our still unproved result), the inequalities must be strict.

Thank you for your interest! Any feedback would be appreciated!

orangeskid
  • 56,630
  • Doesn't really help, but if the upper $n \times n$ of the adjugate of $\bar{A}$ is non zero then the derivative of $\Delta$ at $\bar{A}$ in an appropriate direction is non zero, but of course this is just moving the pile from one place to another. – copper.hat Jun 20 '22 at 01:22
  • 1
    You have $\Delta(A) = -e^T (\operatorname{adj} A ) e$, where $e$ is the vector of ones. – copper.hat Jun 20 '22 at 01:29
  • @copper.hat: Good catch, thank you! – orangeskid Jun 20 '22 at 01:32
  • @copper.hat: would you be able to check that the quadratic form given by $A$, has its determinant for a basis of $\sum x_i=0$ a positive (negative) multiple of the above det ? I will try for $n=3$. – orangeskid Jun 20 '22 at 01:51
  • 1
    @copper.hat: Hm, that is not so--- and my potential solution is completely wrong. Will have to think in terms of the adjugate, as you indicated. – orangeskid Jun 20 '22 at 02:21
  • 1
    I was hoping the adjugate might have a nice derivative, but its a bit messy. – copper.hat Jun 20 '22 at 03:40
  • @copper.hat: True.. I added some details about the problem, and eliminated the wrong things. It is the adjugate all the way... – orangeskid Jun 21 '22 at 19:15

0 Answers0