2

My question

Would the $\theta$ be still less than 90 degrees in vT * Mk v = ||v|| * ||Mk v|| * cos $\theta$, if the matrix M is positive definite?


Background Information

  • Let's suppose that v (original vector: v) is a non-zero vector and M is a positive definite matrix. I multiply M several K times to a vector v (mapped vector : Mk v ) and then inner product between those two vectors. The mathematical equation is as follows :

         vT * Mk v = ||v|| * ||Mk v|| * cos $\theta$

  • vT * M v >0 : This is a sure thing because M is a positive definite matrix. As such, the angle $\theta$ between the v (original vector) and the Mv (the mapped vector) is less than 90 degree, since the inner product should be positive.
  • I am curious to know if the $\theta$ in the equation below is also between 0 degree and 90 degree.

         vT * Mk v = ||v|| * ||Mk v|| * cos $\theta$

Wouldn’t it be nice in an abstract sense… if you could multiply some matrices multiple times and they won’t change the sign of the vectors? If you multiply positive numbers to other positive numbers, it doesn’t change its sign. I think it’s a neat property for a matrix to have.

  • 1
    If $M$ is positive definite, so is $M^k$ for any integer $k$ (even if it is negative). This is because the eigenvalues of $M^k$ are the $k$-th powers of the respective eigenvalues of $M$, which are all positive, and whose powers are also therefore positive. (And if $M$ is symmetric, then of course $M^k$ is symmetric as well). – M. Vinay Mar 21 '19 at 08:01
  • @M.Vinay Thank you for the comment. But how do eigenvalue of the matrix M have anything to do with the angle between the' original vector' and the 'mapped vector'? To me, eigenvalue is just a scaling factor of the eigenvectors and the 'original vector v' there is any vector, rather than eigenvector. – Eiffelbear Mar 21 '19 at 08:12
  • $A$ is positive definite iff all its eigenvalues are positive (and often, it's also required to be symmetric, though that's sometimes dropped). If $M$ is positive definitive, so is $M^k$ (as I showed in my previous comment). You have yourself noted if $A$ is positive definite, then the angle between $x$ and $Ax$ is acute. – M. Vinay Mar 21 '19 at 08:15
  • Okay, hold on, I'll update my answer with this. I was planning to do that anyway (as soon as I figured it out, hehe!). I'm pretty sure that can also be obtained from the eigenvalues. You see, eigenvectors are those vectors that merely get scaled by the transformation (or matrix). Now given any vector, if you decompose it along the eigenvectors [there's some additional conditions to be discussed here, which I shall do in my answer], then applying $M^k$ is going to scale these components by the respective eigenvalues. Hm, so I think I have the answer now. – M. Vinay Mar 21 '19 at 08:31
  • @M. Vinay I would appreciate it a lot if you add your last comment's part into your answer because I am excited to see how this mystery (a vector still stays in less than the 90 degree with the original vector after getting transformed for several times) would be solved! – Eiffelbear Mar 21 '19 at 09:16

1 Answers1

3

If $M$ is a positive definite matrix, then so is $M^k$, for all integers $k$ (note that negative powers of $M$ also exist since $|M| \ne 0$).

This is easy to see. A matrix $A$ is positive definite if and only if all its eigenvalues are positive [additionally, $A$ may also be required to be symmetric, in the more common definition]. If $\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n$ are all the eigenvalues of a matrix $M$, then eigenvalues of $M^k$ are exactly $\lambda_1^k, \ldots, \lambda_n^k$ (this also holds for negative $k$ if $M$ is invertible, which is true if every $\lambda_i$ is non-zero). Thus, if $M$ is positive definite, each $\lambda_i > 0$, which implies $\lambda_i^k > 0$ as well, and therefore $M^k$ is also positive definite [additionally, if $M$ is symmetric, so is $M^k$].

Thus, $v^T M^k v > 0$ for all $v \ne 0$, which proves (as shown in the question itself) that the angle between $v$ and $M^k v$ is acute.


We can also see this geometrically. Now I will assume that $M$ is indeed a (real) symmetric $n \times n$ positive definite matrix. Being real and symmetric guarantees that it is diagonalisable, or equivalently (what is important for us), that it has a set of $n$ eigenvectors that form a basis for $\mathbb R^n$. Indeed, there is an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb R^n$ whose elements are eigenvectors of $M$. Let this orthonormal basis be $B = \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}$, and let $\lambda_i$ be the eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenvector $x_i$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$. Thus, $M x_i = \lambda_i x_i$.

Thus, given any vector $v \in \mathbb R^n$, we can decompose it along the basis vectors as, say, $$v = \alpha_1 x_1 + \cdots + \alpha_n x_n.$$

Now, if $M$ is applied to $v$, each component in the above representation gets scaled by the corresponding eigenvalue (because each component is an eigenvector). That is,

\begin{align*} Mv &= M(\alpha_1 x_1 + \cdots + \alpha_n x_n)\\ &= \alpha_1 (M x_1) + \cdots + \alpha_n (M x_n)\\ &= \alpha_1 \lambda_1 x_1 + \cdots + \alpha_n \lambda_n x_n\\ &= \lambda_1 (\alpha_1 x_1) + \cdots + \lambda_n (\alpha_n x_n). \end{align*}

Since each $\lambda_i$ is positive, all the components get scaled in their current direction (up, down, or not at all, according to the eigenvalue being greater than, less than, or equal to $1$). This makes it obvious that the direction of none of the components is reversed (and therefore the direction of the whole vector is also not reversed). Furthermore, since no eigenvalue is zero, no "projection" occurs. Thus, $Mv$ cannot be orthogonal to $v$. Indeed, the angle between $Mv$ and $v$ will be acute.

Consider the orthonormal basis $B$ consisting of eigenvectors of $M$. This orthonormal system defines its own $2^n$ orthants in $\mathbb R^n$ (not the standard orthants). The vector $v$ lies in one of these, or possibly between some of these (if its components along some of the eigenvectors are zero). If it lies between some orthants, then then we may simply consider the lower dimensional subspace spanned by its non-zero components and all the arguments below will hold in this subspace.

Consider the example shown below in $\mathbb R^2$. The light blue vector is $v$ and the shaded region is the orthant containing it in the coordinate system defined by the red axes defined by the two eigenvectors of $M$. The components of $v$ along the axes are also shown in light blue.

Successive PD transformations

Each time $M$ is applied (to the result of the previous application), each component gets scaled by the corresponding eigenvalue. The diagram shows $Mv$ and $M^2 v$ and their respective components (the darker blue vectors). Thus, higher and higher powers of $M$ applied to $v$ produce vectors where the components of $v$ along the eigenvectors corresponding to the highest eigenvalues have been scaled abnormally high (assuming these eigenvalues are greater than $1$). On the other hand, the components corresponding to eigenvalues less than $1$ if any will get scaled down, closer and closer to zero (none such in the example shown).

However, since the scaling never reverses any component, all the vectors from the successive applications remain in the same orthant as the original vector. Any two vectors strictly inside one orthant have an acute angle between them.

M. Vinay
  • 9,004
  • Oh that's right. Thank you. But can you give me a geometric interpretation of this? I can't understand after mapping the vector v several k times with the matrix M, still the angle between the original vector v and the mapped vector M k is still less than 90 degree – Eiffelbear Mar 21 '19 at 08:28
  • Actually I'm planning to update this answer even further. – M. Vinay Mar 21 '19 at 13:46
  • Your suggestion is more than welcome. I have 2 questions. Q.1. I dont get the part "since no eigenvalue is zero, no projection occurs". Isn't it the case that dimension would collapse if eigenvalue is zero? It's because as Mv is a linear combinations of "lambda* alpha * x ". If one of the lambdas is 0 for example lambda 2 is 0, the direction of the vector expressed by x2 disappears. That dimension is gone. To me, if a eigen value is zero, it means that after transformation by multiplying the matrix M to a vector v, a dimension reduction occurs. Curious to know why you said it's a "projection" – Eiffelbear Mar 21 '19 at 14:03
  • Q.2 I can see that since all eigenvalues are bigger than 0 (positive definite matrix), if you keep multiplying the transformation matrix M, the eigenvectors get scaled in the current direction. But how does that mean "mapped vector and the original vector has an angle between them less than 90 degree?" I cannot see the link between those two statements. Any intuitive explanation for that please? – Eiffelbear Mar 21 '19 at 14:09
  • Regarding my first question, the dimension collapse and projection are the same things! Haha. Have thought about it overnight :) But still have no clue on the question no.2.. – Eiffelbear Mar 22 '19 at 02:06
  • I'd been quite busy during the day, but I've finally completed the answer more or less to my satisfaction (I'd like it to be less verbose, I don't have the energy right now to do the necessary editing). I hope the geometry is more obvious now. – M. Vinay Mar 22 '19 at 14:45