Suppose $n$ is some large integer, and consider the following two matrices:
$$ S = \begin{pmatrix} 0 &1 & 0 & \dots & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & \dots & 0 \\ \vdots & & & \ddots & \vdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$
(i.e., a non-circulant shift) and $$ A = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & \dots & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 2 & \dots & 0\\ \vdots & & & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & n-1\end{pmatrix}$$ (i.e., a diagonal matrix with increasing diagonal entries.)
Suppose I have a vector $v\in\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfying $v^Tv=1$ and $v^TSv \geq 1-\epsilon$. What kind of lower bound can I get for $v^TAv$?
It seems like for $v^Tv\geq 1-\epsilon$, we need $v$ to be highly "spread out". If $v$ is spread out, then more of its "weight" will be multiplied with higher numbers in $A$, leading to a larger product $v^TAv$. But I can't get any precise bounds.
I tried an optimization kind of technique: $v^Tv=1$ and $v^TSv\geq 1-\epsilon$ and constraints and $v^TAv$ is an objective function, and this could be minimized with Lagrange multipliers. But it results in a horrid recursive formula where I think it is hopeless to solve for the Lagrange multipliers. The solution I expect to give an optimal value -- the first $m\geq \frac{1}{\epsilon}$ entries exactly $\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}$, the remainder $0$, which gives $v^TSv=1-\frac{1}{m}$ -- doesn't seem to satisfy the Lagrange conditions of this optimization.
EDIT: Solving this numerically, the results look almost exactly like the square root of a Poisson distribution (i.e., $x_i^2$ follow a Poisson distribution), with parameters that seem to be almost unchanged in $n$ for sufficiently large $n$.
Using Lagrange multipliers, I get
$$\nabla v^TAv + \mu_1\nabla v^TSv + \mu_2\nabla v^Tv = 0$$ which produces $n$ equations of the form $$ 2kv_k + \mu_1(v_{k-1}+v_{k+1}) + 2\mu_2 v_k = 0$$ (if $v_0=v_{n+1}=0$). Letting $v_k = \sqrt{\text{Poisson}(k;\lambda)}$ does not solve this, however.
Any ideas?
Here, $v = (x_1,x_2,\dots x_n)$
– dezdichado Jan 05 '22 at 20:19