2

EDIT: I have refined the proof as per @TedShifrin's recommendation.

This is problem 2.4.P1 from "Matrix Analysis" 2nd ed. by Horn and Johnson. Let $A\in M_n$ have distinct eigenvalues. Show that there is an $\epsilon > 0$ such that every $B\in M_n$ that satisfies $\lVert A - B \rVert_F^2 = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \lvert a_{ij}-b_{ij}\rvert^2 < \epsilon$ also has distinct eigenvalues. Conclude that the set of matrices with distinct eigenvalues is an open subset of $M_n$. Remark: we're supposed to use theorem 2.4.9.2 from the book to prove this.

Theorem 2.4.9.2

Let an infinite sequence $A_1,A_2,\ldots\in M_n$ be given and suppose that $\lim_{k\to\infty}A_k = A$ (entrywise convergence). Let $\lambda(A) = [\lambda_1(A) ~\ldots~ \lambda_n(A)]^T$ and $\lambda(A_k) = [\lambda_1(A_k) ~\ldots~ \lambda_n(A_k)]^T$ be given presentations of the eigenvalues of $A$ and $A_k$ respectively, for $k=1,2,\ldots$. Let $S_n = \{\pi ~:~ \pi ~\text{is a permutation of}~ \{1,2,\ldots,n\} \}$. Then for each given $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists a positive integer $N = N(\varepsilon)$ such that $$ \min_{\pi\in S_n}\max_{i=1,\ldots,n} \lvert \lambda_{\pi(i)}(A_k) - \lambda_i(A)\rvert \leq \varepsilon~\text{for all}~k\geq N. $$

Attempt

Define $\mathcal{B}_\epsilon(A) = \{ B\in M_n ~|~ \lVert A - B\rVert_F < \epsilon \}$, and assume for the sake of contradiction that for each $\epsilon > 0$ there is a $B\in\mathcal{B}_\epsilon(A)$ with at least one repeated eigenvalue. Let $(\epsilon_k)$ be an arbitrary, positive, strictly decreasing sequence, and let $B_k \in \mathcal{B}_{\epsilon_k}(A)$ have a repeated eigenvalue. Note then that $\epsilon_k$ decreasing implies that $\lim_{k\to\infty}B_k = A$ entrywise.

Now, let $\pi_k = \arg\min_{\pi\in S_n}\max_{i=1,\ldots,n} \lvert \lambda_{\pi(i)}(B_k) - \lambda_i(A)\rvert$, $c = \min_{i\neq j}\lvert \lambda_i(A) - \lambda_j(A)\rvert > 0$, and let $\beta_k = \lambda_{\pi_k(i_k)}(B_k) = \lambda_{\pi_k(j_k)}(B_k)$ be the repeated eigenvalue of $B_k$ for some $i_k\neq j_k,k=1,2,\ldots$. Theorem 2.4.9.2 states that for $\varepsilon < c$ there is an $N$ such that $\lvert \beta_k - \lambda_{i_k}(A)\rvert \leq \varepsilon/2$ and $\lvert \beta_k - \lambda_{j_k}(A)\rvert \leq \varepsilon/2$ for all $k \geq N$. But then $$ c \leq \lvert \lambda_{i_k}(A) - \lambda_{j_k}(A)\rvert\leq \lvert \beta_k - \lambda_{i_k}(A)\rvert + \lvert \beta_k - \lambda_{j_k}(A)\rvert\leq\varepsilon < c, $$ a contradiction. Since the sequence $(\epsilon_k)$, and consequently the sequence $(B_k)$ are arbitrary, we conclude that there is an $\epsilon$ such that every $B\in\mathcal{B}_\epsilon(A)$ has distinct eigenvalues.

Is this proof correct? My main concerns are whether the strict inequality holds, and whether the contradiction covers all cases.

V.S.e.H.
  • 2,889
  • 1
  • 11
  • 23
  • 1
    "it follows that" ... contains the whole argument. Somehow, to me, the contradiction argument makes it more difficult. Why not start with matrix $A$ with distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ and let $c=\min{|\lambda_i-\lambda_j|: i\ne j}$. Choose $\epsilon>0$ so that, by the continuity result, if $|B-A|_F<\epsilon$, then the eigenvalues of $B$ are less than $c$ away from the eigenvalues of $A$. – Ted Shifrin May 28 '22 at 02:20
  • @TedShifrin I actually thought about this, but didn't know exactly how to apply thrm 2.4.9.2, since it states a result about a sequence of matrices. Can you elaborate a bit further? – V.S.e.H. May 28 '22 at 02:26
  • I have no idea what the theorem is. It's up to you to post it explicitly. You referred to it as a continuity statement; that's precisely what I'm using. – Ted Shifrin May 28 '22 at 02:29
  • @TedShifrin Apologies, I've included the theorem. – V.S.e.H. May 28 '22 at 02:49
  • 1
    OK, so one has to play the usual game to turn this sequential criterion into a usual $\delta$-$\epsilon$ statement of continuity. (That in turn is done much like your contradiction proof.) So I withdraw my suggestion and leave it to you to fix up your sequence proof. But you do need to fasten down the "it follows that." – Ted Shifrin May 28 '22 at 03:12
  • @TedShifrin Thanks, I'm happy that I'm in the right direction at least and only have to polish the proof! By "fasten down" do you mean using the theorem and explicitly showing that $\min_\pi \max_i |\lambda_{\pi(i)} - \lambda_i| > \epsilon_k$ for some $k$, thus contradicting that $A$'s eigenvalues are distinct? – V.S.e.H. May 28 '22 at 11:50

1 Answers1

2

For the record, here's a much simpler proof. For $A \in \mathbb C^{n\times n}$. Consider the following $n\times n$ Hankel Matrix.

$H_A=\begin{pmatrix} \text{trace}\big(I_n\big) & \text{trace}\big(A^1\big) & \text{trace}\big(A^2\big) &\cdots &\text{trace}\big(A^{n-1}\big) \\ \text{trace}\big(A^1\big) & \text{trace}\big(A^2\big) & \text{trace}\big(A^3\big) & \cdots & \text{trace}\big(A^{n}\big) \\ \text{trace}\big(A^2\big) & \text{trace}\big(A^3\big)& \text{trace}\big(A^4\big) & \cdots &\text{trace}\big(A^{n+1}\big) \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \text{trace}\big(A^{n-1}\big) & \text{trace}\big(A^{n}\big) &\text{trace}\big(A^{n+1}\big) & \cdots & \text{trace}\big(A^{2n-2}\big) \end{pmatrix}$

$\text{rank } H_A=\text{number of unique eigenvalues of A}$. Since $A$ has $n$ unique eigenvalues, this tells us $\det\big(H_A\big) = c\neq 0$. The map

$f: M_n\longrightarrow \mathbb C$
given by $f(X)= \det\big(H_X\big)$ is a polynomial function of matrix $X$'s entries hence continuous. Applying the definition of continuity with the distance metric $d\big(A,B) = \big \Vert A-B\big \Vert_F$ and selecting $\epsilon := \frac{\vert c\vert}{2}$ we know there is some $\delta\gt 0$ such that
$d\big(A,B\big)\lt \delta \implies\big \vert f(A) -f(B)\big \vert \lt \epsilon = \frac{\vert c\vert}{2}\implies f(B) \neq 0\implies \text{rank}H_B = n\implies B \text{ has n unique eigenvalues}$


addendum re: the determinant of the Hankel Matrix
Let $X\in \mathbb C^{n\times n}$

All that is needed for purposes of this post is
$\text{rank}\big(H_X\big) =n\iff \text{X has n distinct eigenvalues}$

proof:
$X$ has $n$ eigenvalues (with repetition). Come up with some arbitrary labeling for them and collect their respective moment curves in the rows of the below square Vandermonde matrix.

$V:=\begin{bmatrix} 1 & \lambda_0 & \lambda_0^2 & \dots & \lambda_0^{n-1}\\ 1 & \lambda_1 & \lambda_1^2 & \dots & \lambda_1^{n-1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \\ 1 & \lambda_{n-1} & \lambda_{n-1}^{2} & \dots & \lambda_{n-1}^{n-1} \end{bmatrix} =\bigg[\begin{array}{c|c|c|c} \mathbf v_0 & \mathbf v_1 &\mathbf v_2 &\cdots & \mathbf v_{n-1} \end{array}\bigg]$

For formal convenience $\lambda_k^0:=1$

Then $H_X=V^T V $ because for $i, j \in \big\{0,1,\dots, n-1\big\}$
$\mathbf e_i^T H_X \mathbf e_j = \text{trace}\big(X^{i+j}\big) =\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \lambda_k^{i+j} =\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \lambda_k^{i}\cdot \lambda_k^j=\mathbf v_i^T \mathbf v_j = \mathbf e_i^T V^T V \mathbf e_j $

And since $V$ is a square Vandermonde matrix it is invertible iff all $\lambda_k$ are distinct. Thus if not all eigenvalues are distinct then $\text{rank}\big(H_X\big)=\text{rank}\big(V^T V\big)\leq \text{rank}\big(V\big)\lt n$ and if all eigenvalues are distinct $H_X$ is invertible hence has rank $n$.

Alternatively observe that $\det\big(H_x\big)= \det\big(V\big)^2$ which is the discriminant of the characteristic polynomial of $X$. (This motivates yet another approach: working directly with the resultant of $X$'s characteristic polynomial and said polynomial's derivative, i.e. via the determinant of the associated Sylvester Matrix but the above approach seems more accessible.)

user8675309
  • 12,193