2

Let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times m}$ be a nonsymmetric zero diagonal matrix with a zero/non-zero pattern which is symmetric and persymmetric (i.e. symmetric in the northeast-to-southwest diagonal).

Edit: The matrices are nonsymmetric while the patterns are symmetric and persymmetric.

If $A$ has any kind of block checkerboard pattern, or an offset of a block checkerboard pattern that conserves symmetry and persymmetry (of the pattern), then $A^k, k=2n+1, n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ has also zero diagonal.

1) Is there a necessary and sufficient condition on the zero/non-zero pattern to get a zero diagonal $A^k, k=2n+1, n\in\mathbb{N}_0$?

If $A^k, k=2n+1, n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ has zero diagonal, then the spectrum of $A$ is symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis (proof).

2) Is the numerical range (i.e. field of values, $W(A)=\left\{ \frac{v^* A v}{v^* v}, v \in \mathbb{C}^m, v\ne 0 \right\}$) always symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis as well?

Examples: \begin{align} \pmatrix{0 &2 &0 &-4\\ 1 &0 &2 &0 \\ 0 &-1 &0 &8 \\ -4 &0 &7 &0} \end{align}

\begin{align} \pmatrix{0 &0 &3 &-4\\ 0 &0 &-1 &3 \\ 3 &-1 &0 &0 \\ -4 &3 &0 &0} \end{align}

\begin{align} \pmatrix{0 &-9 &1 &0\\ -9 &0 &0 &-1 \\ -1 &0 &0 &1 \\ 0 &5 &7 &0} \end{align}

Edit: This article: www.math.technion.ac.il/iic/ela/ela-articles/articles/vol26_pp591-603.pdf claims that traceless matrices with n-fold symmetry of the spectrum have the same n-fold symmetry of the numerical range if any product of $A$ and $A^*$ where the number of occurrences of $A$ and $A^*$ is different and nonzero.

Now my matrices have zero diagonal on top of traceless. If the theorem can be specialized for any product where the total number of occurrences is odd, then the proof is done.

Astor
  • 424

1 Answers1

1

Long story short: while there is a nice way to generate the kind of patterns you've been producing (i.e. there is a sufficient condition), there is no necessary/sufficient condition that I'm aware of for more general zero/non-zero patterns.

If $A$ is symmetric and its spectrum is "symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis", then $W(A)$ will also be "symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis".


Saying that $A$ is symmetric and persymmetric is equivalent to saying that $A$ is symmetric and satisfies $AJ = JA$, where $J$ is the exchange matrix. Notably, this means that

First of all, note that with all your examples, all you've done is taken a matrix of the form $$ M = \pmatrix{0&A\\A^T&0} $$ and applied a permutation similarity. That is: for a suitable permutation matrix $P$, $PMP^T$ will be a "checkerboard matrix". If $M$ is symmetric, then $PMP^T$ will also be symmetric, since we'd find that $$ [PMP^T]^T = P^{TT}M^TP^T = PMP^T $$ If $M$ is also persymmetric and if $PJ = JP$ (which implies that $P^TJ = JP^T$), then $PMP^T$ will also be persymmetric, since we'd find that $$ [PMP^T]J = PMP^TJ = PMJP^T = PJMP^T = JPMP^T = J[PMP^T] $$ We can also show that for $M$ as above, $M^k$ will be traceless for odd $k$ (from which it follows that $[PMP^T]^k$ is traceless). In particular: note that $$ M^2 = \pmatrix{AA^T & 0\\0&A^TA} $$ Thus, $$ M^{2n+1} = \pmatrix{AA^T & 0\\0&A^TA}^{2n} \pmatrix{0 & A\\A^T&0} = \pmatrix{0 & (AA^T)^{2n}\\(A^TA)^{2n}A^T & 0} $$ which is traceless since it is zero on the diagonal.

If $A$ is symmetric and its spectrum is symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis, then $W(A)$ will also be symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis. To see this, it suffices to note that the numerical range is simply the convex hull of the spectrum of $A$ whenever $A$ is symmetric.


It can also be directly shown that any matrix of the form $$ M = \pmatrix{0&A\\A^T&0} $$ will be "symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis". In particular, if $A = U\Sigma V^T$ is a singular value decomposition, then we write $$ \pmatrix{&A\\A^T} = \pmatrix{U \\ & V} \pmatrix{ & \Sigma\\ \Sigma} \pmatrix{U \\ & V}^T $$ And since $\Sigma$ is diagonal, we can easily determine the spectrum of the matrix $$ \pmatrix{ & \Sigma\\ \Sigma} = \pmatrix{0&1\\1&0} \otimes \Sigma $$ where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product.

Ben Grossmann
  • 234,171
  • 12
  • 184
  • 355
  • Thanks for your detailed contribution. The question is oriented though to nonsymmetric matrices (with symmetric and nonsymmetric patterns). Can you think of anything about that? – Astor Aug 15 '17 at 19:39
  • 1
    @Astor that wasn't really clear from your question. In any case, what kinds of results do you expect? Surely, we shouldn't expect all the patterns you've seen in your family of examples to persist. – Ben Grossmann Aug 15 '17 at 19:45
  • 1
    @Astor oh, I didn't notice that your examples weren't symmetric. I think a similar analysis will apply, though. In particular, your checker boards are merely suitable permutations of the block matrix. – Ben Grossmann Aug 15 '17 at 19:51
  • Thanks again! Your analysis is certainly relevant and I really appreciate your interest. I am interested in two things:
    1. All the patterns that are traceless after multiplying an odd amount of times.
    2. A condition on the patterns such that the numerical range is symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis.

    I am much more interested in question 2).

    – Astor Aug 15 '17 at 19:59
  • Adjacency matrices of bipartite graphs have this kind of periodicity of the tracelessness, and it can be proven that this periodicity provides the symmetry with respect to the imaginary axis to the spectrum. If the block structure is an "adjacency block matrix" you get the same tracelessness orbits. Now, I am very interested in a condition for the symmetry on the spectrum to extend to the numerical range! – Astor Aug 15 '17 at 20:01
  • 1
    That makes sense. That bit with the numerical range is going to be tricky... but the rest can be explained for the bipartite adjacency patterns with a modification of the above argument. – Ben Grossmann Aug 15 '17 at 21:14
  • The numerical range is tricky yes... But I also fail to prove that all traceless matrices that multiplied by themselves odd times are also traceless matrices implies are in fact bipartite graph adjacency matrices :'( – Astor Aug 15 '17 at 21:30
  • 1
    @Astor Oh, another thing I didn't understand from the question. That one's easy; I'll add it in – Ben Grossmann Aug 15 '17 at 21:38
  • Wait! I'll write this question as a separate one so you can answer! – Astor Aug 15 '17 at 21:39
  • 1
    @Astor okay! Anyway, it might be harder than I suspected... – Ben Grossmann Aug 15 '17 at 21:41
  • I added an edit from an article I found. Maybe this could help prove the numerical range symmetry? – Astor Aug 16 '17 at 13:44