How to show the trace inequality of two P.S.D matrices $text{Tr(X)}leqtext{Tr(Y)}$ when $X preceq Y$?
$begingroup$
Let $X,Y$ be two Positive Semi-Definite matrices. How can we show the following in the most elegant and shortest way? Because I know how to prove it but I think there is a better way?
Alos, MaoWao shows it differently using summation.
$$text{Tr}(X)leqtext{Tr}(Y)$$ when $X preceq Y$, where $Y-X$ is positive semi-definite?
My try is:
$x^T(Y-X)x geq 0$ so $text{Tr}(xx^T(Y-X)) geq 0$.
Then using $text{tr}(AB) leq text{tr(A)} text{tr(B)}$
$$0 leq text{Tr}(xx^T(Y-X)) leq text{Tr}(xx^T)text{Tr}(Y-X)$$
hence the claim.
I do not want to use this $text{tr}(AB) leq text{tr(A)} text{tr(B)}$ or sumation. Is there any other way to show it shorter?
matrices inequality positive-definite
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $X,Y$ be two Positive Semi-Definite matrices. How can we show the following in the most elegant and shortest way? Because I know how to prove it but I think there is a better way?
Alos, MaoWao shows it differently using summation.
$$text{Tr}(X)leqtext{Tr}(Y)$$ when $X preceq Y$, where $Y-X$ is positive semi-definite?
My try is:
$x^T(Y-X)x geq 0$ so $text{Tr}(xx^T(Y-X)) geq 0$.
Then using $text{tr}(AB) leq text{tr(A)} text{tr(B)}$
$$0 leq text{Tr}(xx^T(Y-X)) leq text{Tr}(xx^T)text{Tr}(Y-X)$$
hence the claim.
I do not want to use this $text{tr}(AB) leq text{tr(A)} text{tr(B)}$ or sumation. Is there any other way to show it shorter?
matrices inequality positive-definite
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What does $X preceq Y$ mean? That $Y-X$ is positive semidefinite?
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:04
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: Yes
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
Then each diagonal entry in $Y-X$ is nonnegative.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:07
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: You are right. Then to get the inequality we need use this fact and sum over the diagonals to get the result!
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $X,Y$ be two Positive Semi-Definite matrices. How can we show the following in the most elegant and shortest way? Because I know how to prove it but I think there is a better way?
Alos, MaoWao shows it differently using summation.
$$text{Tr}(X)leqtext{Tr}(Y)$$ when $X preceq Y$, where $Y-X$ is positive semi-definite?
My try is:
$x^T(Y-X)x geq 0$ so $text{Tr}(xx^T(Y-X)) geq 0$.
Then using $text{tr}(AB) leq text{tr(A)} text{tr(B)}$
$$0 leq text{Tr}(xx^T(Y-X)) leq text{Tr}(xx^T)text{Tr}(Y-X)$$
hence the claim.
I do not want to use this $text{tr}(AB) leq text{tr(A)} text{tr(B)}$ or sumation. Is there any other way to show it shorter?
matrices inequality positive-definite
$endgroup$
Let $X,Y$ be two Positive Semi-Definite matrices. How can we show the following in the most elegant and shortest way? Because I know how to prove it but I think there is a better way?
Alos, MaoWao shows it differently using summation.
$$text{Tr}(X)leqtext{Tr}(Y)$$ when $X preceq Y$, where $Y-X$ is positive semi-definite?
My try is:
$x^T(Y-X)x geq 0$ so $text{Tr}(xx^T(Y-X)) geq 0$.
Then using $text{tr}(AB) leq text{tr(A)} text{tr(B)}$
$$0 leq text{Tr}(xx^T(Y-X)) leq text{Tr}(xx^T)text{Tr}(Y-X)$$
hence the claim.
I do not want to use this $text{tr}(AB) leq text{tr(A)} text{tr(B)}$ or sumation. Is there any other way to show it shorter?
matrices inequality positive-definite
matrices inequality positive-definite
edited Jan 15 at 17:06
Saeed
asked Jan 15 at 17:02
SaeedSaeed
1,171310
1,171310
$begingroup$
What does $X preceq Y$ mean? That $Y-X$ is positive semidefinite?
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:04
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: Yes
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
Then each diagonal entry in $Y-X$ is nonnegative.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:07
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: You are right. Then to get the inequality we need use this fact and sum over the diagonals to get the result!
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What does $X preceq Y$ mean? That $Y-X$ is positive semidefinite?
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:04
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: Yes
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
Then each diagonal entry in $Y-X$ is nonnegative.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:07
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: You are right. Then to get the inequality we need use this fact and sum over the diagonals to get the result!
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:39
$begingroup$
What does $X preceq Y$ mean? That $Y-X$ is positive semidefinite?
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:04
$begingroup$
What does $X preceq Y$ mean? That $Y-X$ is positive semidefinite?
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:04
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: Yes
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:05
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: Yes
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:05
1
1
$begingroup$
Then each diagonal entry in $Y-X$ is nonnegative.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:07
$begingroup$
Then each diagonal entry in $Y-X$ is nonnegative.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:07
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: You are right. Then to get the inequality we need use this fact and sum over the diagonals to get the result!
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:39
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: You are right. Then to get the inequality we need use this fact and sum over the diagonals to get the result!
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:39
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let $e_i$ be a the basis vector with 1 in element $i$, and 0's elsewhere. Then
begin{align*}
e_i^intercal (Y - X) e_i = Y_{ii} - X_{ii} ge 0
end{align*}
Summing over $i$,
begin{align*}
text{tr}(Y-X) = sum_i(Y_{ii} - X_{ii}) ge 0
end{align*}
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
still using summation! This is exactly what is in math.stackexchange.com/questions/3074592/… which I said. Can you show it without summation?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 20:29
$begingroup$
Ah, that may be very difficult. The trace itself, by definition, is a sum, and any direct proof I can imagine (avoiding eigenvalues, for example), would involve quadratic forms which, in itself, are sums (of squares).
$endgroup$
– Tom Chen
Jan 16 at 5:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $Y - X$ is positive semidefinite, all its eigenvalues are nonnegative, so $Tr(Y-X) geq 0$. Now, by linearity of the trace operator, $Tr(Y) - Tr(X) geq 0.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The question is why all eigenvalues are nonnegative $text{Tr}(Y-X)leq 0$. Please read the statement carefully and confer to the provided links.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:18
$begingroup$
Sorry, I took it as the definition of positive semidefinite that all the eigenvalues are nonnegative (this is often the case).
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@Saeed: Please delete the answer because it does not follow the statement. The problem is not as easy as it seems. Or you can provide a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:30
$begingroup$
What is your definition of positive semidefinite? Is it that $x^* A x geq 0$ for all vectors $x neq 0$? If so, because $A$ is Hermitian, then it is unitarily diagonalizable. Hence, by a change of variables, if $A = UDU^*$, where $U$ is unitary and $D$ is diagonal. Then $0 leq x^* A x = (Ux)^* D Ux = y^* D y$ for all vectors $y neq 0$ (since unitary matrices are bijective). Hence, taking $y$ to be a standard basis vector gives that each entry of $D$ is nonnegative, or that the eigenvalues of $A$ are nonnegative. So my definition and yours are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:50
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3074648%2fhow-to-show-the-trace-inequality-of-two-p-s-d-matrices-texttrx-leq-texttr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let $e_i$ be a the basis vector with 1 in element $i$, and 0's elsewhere. Then
begin{align*}
e_i^intercal (Y - X) e_i = Y_{ii} - X_{ii} ge 0
end{align*}
Summing over $i$,
begin{align*}
text{tr}(Y-X) = sum_i(Y_{ii} - X_{ii}) ge 0
end{align*}
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
still using summation! This is exactly what is in math.stackexchange.com/questions/3074592/… which I said. Can you show it without summation?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 20:29
$begingroup$
Ah, that may be very difficult. The trace itself, by definition, is a sum, and any direct proof I can imagine (avoiding eigenvalues, for example), would involve quadratic forms which, in itself, are sums (of squares).
$endgroup$
– Tom Chen
Jan 16 at 5:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $e_i$ be a the basis vector with 1 in element $i$, and 0's elsewhere. Then
begin{align*}
e_i^intercal (Y - X) e_i = Y_{ii} - X_{ii} ge 0
end{align*}
Summing over $i$,
begin{align*}
text{tr}(Y-X) = sum_i(Y_{ii} - X_{ii}) ge 0
end{align*}
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
still using summation! This is exactly what is in math.stackexchange.com/questions/3074592/… which I said. Can you show it without summation?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 20:29
$begingroup$
Ah, that may be very difficult. The trace itself, by definition, is a sum, and any direct proof I can imagine (avoiding eigenvalues, for example), would involve quadratic forms which, in itself, are sums (of squares).
$endgroup$
– Tom Chen
Jan 16 at 5:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $e_i$ be a the basis vector with 1 in element $i$, and 0's elsewhere. Then
begin{align*}
e_i^intercal (Y - X) e_i = Y_{ii} - X_{ii} ge 0
end{align*}
Summing over $i$,
begin{align*}
text{tr}(Y-X) = sum_i(Y_{ii} - X_{ii}) ge 0
end{align*}
$endgroup$
Let $e_i$ be a the basis vector with 1 in element $i$, and 0's elsewhere. Then
begin{align*}
e_i^intercal (Y - X) e_i = Y_{ii} - X_{ii} ge 0
end{align*}
Summing over $i$,
begin{align*}
text{tr}(Y-X) = sum_i(Y_{ii} - X_{ii}) ge 0
end{align*}
answered Jan 15 at 18:23
Tom ChenTom Chen
2,143715
2,143715
$begingroup$
still using summation! This is exactly what is in math.stackexchange.com/questions/3074592/… which I said. Can you show it without summation?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 20:29
$begingroup$
Ah, that may be very difficult. The trace itself, by definition, is a sum, and any direct proof I can imagine (avoiding eigenvalues, for example), would involve quadratic forms which, in itself, are sums (of squares).
$endgroup$
– Tom Chen
Jan 16 at 5:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
still using summation! This is exactly what is in math.stackexchange.com/questions/3074592/… which I said. Can you show it without summation?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 20:29
$begingroup$
Ah, that may be very difficult. The trace itself, by definition, is a sum, and any direct proof I can imagine (avoiding eigenvalues, for example), would involve quadratic forms which, in itself, are sums (of squares).
$endgroup$
– Tom Chen
Jan 16 at 5:29
$begingroup$
still using summation! This is exactly what is in math.stackexchange.com/questions/3074592/… which I said. Can you show it without summation?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 20:29
$begingroup$
still using summation! This is exactly what is in math.stackexchange.com/questions/3074592/… which I said. Can you show it without summation?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 20:29
$begingroup$
Ah, that may be very difficult. The trace itself, by definition, is a sum, and any direct proof I can imagine (avoiding eigenvalues, for example), would involve quadratic forms which, in itself, are sums (of squares).
$endgroup$
– Tom Chen
Jan 16 at 5:29
$begingroup$
Ah, that may be very difficult. The trace itself, by definition, is a sum, and any direct proof I can imagine (avoiding eigenvalues, for example), would involve quadratic forms which, in itself, are sums (of squares).
$endgroup$
– Tom Chen
Jan 16 at 5:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $Y - X$ is positive semidefinite, all its eigenvalues are nonnegative, so $Tr(Y-X) geq 0$. Now, by linearity of the trace operator, $Tr(Y) - Tr(X) geq 0.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The question is why all eigenvalues are nonnegative $text{Tr}(Y-X)leq 0$. Please read the statement carefully and confer to the provided links.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:18
$begingroup$
Sorry, I took it as the definition of positive semidefinite that all the eigenvalues are nonnegative (this is often the case).
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@Saeed: Please delete the answer because it does not follow the statement. The problem is not as easy as it seems. Or you can provide a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:30
$begingroup$
What is your definition of positive semidefinite? Is it that $x^* A x geq 0$ for all vectors $x neq 0$? If so, because $A$ is Hermitian, then it is unitarily diagonalizable. Hence, by a change of variables, if $A = UDU^*$, where $U$ is unitary and $D$ is diagonal. Then $0 leq x^* A x = (Ux)^* D Ux = y^* D y$ for all vectors $y neq 0$ (since unitary matrices are bijective). Hence, taking $y$ to be a standard basis vector gives that each entry of $D$ is nonnegative, or that the eigenvalues of $A$ are nonnegative. So my definition and yours are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $Y - X$ is positive semidefinite, all its eigenvalues are nonnegative, so $Tr(Y-X) geq 0$. Now, by linearity of the trace operator, $Tr(Y) - Tr(X) geq 0.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The question is why all eigenvalues are nonnegative $text{Tr}(Y-X)leq 0$. Please read the statement carefully and confer to the provided links.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:18
$begingroup$
Sorry, I took it as the definition of positive semidefinite that all the eigenvalues are nonnegative (this is often the case).
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@Saeed: Please delete the answer because it does not follow the statement. The problem is not as easy as it seems. Or you can provide a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:30
$begingroup$
What is your definition of positive semidefinite? Is it that $x^* A x geq 0$ for all vectors $x neq 0$? If so, because $A$ is Hermitian, then it is unitarily diagonalizable. Hence, by a change of variables, if $A = UDU^*$, where $U$ is unitary and $D$ is diagonal. Then $0 leq x^* A x = (Ux)^* D Ux = y^* D y$ for all vectors $y neq 0$ (since unitary matrices are bijective). Hence, taking $y$ to be a standard basis vector gives that each entry of $D$ is nonnegative, or that the eigenvalues of $A$ are nonnegative. So my definition and yours are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $Y - X$ is positive semidefinite, all its eigenvalues are nonnegative, so $Tr(Y-X) geq 0$. Now, by linearity of the trace operator, $Tr(Y) - Tr(X) geq 0.$
$endgroup$
Since $Y - X$ is positive semidefinite, all its eigenvalues are nonnegative, so $Tr(Y-X) geq 0$. Now, by linearity of the trace operator, $Tr(Y) - Tr(X) geq 0.$
answered Jan 15 at 17:10
OldGodzillaOldGodzilla
57427
57427
$begingroup$
The question is why all eigenvalues are nonnegative $text{Tr}(Y-X)leq 0$. Please read the statement carefully and confer to the provided links.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:18
$begingroup$
Sorry, I took it as the definition of positive semidefinite that all the eigenvalues are nonnegative (this is often the case).
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@Saeed: Please delete the answer because it does not follow the statement. The problem is not as easy as it seems. Or you can provide a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:30
$begingroup$
What is your definition of positive semidefinite? Is it that $x^* A x geq 0$ for all vectors $x neq 0$? If so, because $A$ is Hermitian, then it is unitarily diagonalizable. Hence, by a change of variables, if $A = UDU^*$, where $U$ is unitary and $D$ is diagonal. Then $0 leq x^* A x = (Ux)^* D Ux = y^* D y$ for all vectors $y neq 0$ (since unitary matrices are bijective). Hence, taking $y$ to be a standard basis vector gives that each entry of $D$ is nonnegative, or that the eigenvalues of $A$ are nonnegative. So my definition and yours are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question is why all eigenvalues are nonnegative $text{Tr}(Y-X)leq 0$. Please read the statement carefully and confer to the provided links.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:18
$begingroup$
Sorry, I took it as the definition of positive semidefinite that all the eigenvalues are nonnegative (this is often the case).
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@Saeed: Please delete the answer because it does not follow the statement. The problem is not as easy as it seems. Or you can provide a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:30
$begingroup$
What is your definition of positive semidefinite? Is it that $x^* A x geq 0$ for all vectors $x neq 0$? If so, because $A$ is Hermitian, then it is unitarily diagonalizable. Hence, by a change of variables, if $A = UDU^*$, where $U$ is unitary and $D$ is diagonal. Then $0 leq x^* A x = (Ux)^* D Ux = y^* D y$ for all vectors $y neq 0$ (since unitary matrices are bijective). Hence, taking $y$ to be a standard basis vector gives that each entry of $D$ is nonnegative, or that the eigenvalues of $A$ are nonnegative. So my definition and yours are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:50
$begingroup$
The question is why all eigenvalues are nonnegative $text{Tr}(Y-X)leq 0$. Please read the statement carefully and confer to the provided links.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:18
$begingroup$
The question is why all eigenvalues are nonnegative $text{Tr}(Y-X)leq 0$. Please read the statement carefully and confer to the provided links.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:18
$begingroup$
Sorry, I took it as the definition of positive semidefinite that all the eigenvalues are nonnegative (this is often the case).
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:28
$begingroup$
Sorry, I took it as the definition of positive semidefinite that all the eigenvalues are nonnegative (this is often the case).
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@Saeed: Please delete the answer because it does not follow the statement. The problem is not as easy as it seems. Or you can provide a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:30
$begingroup$
@Saeed: Please delete the answer because it does not follow the statement. The problem is not as easy as it seems. Or you can provide a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:30
$begingroup$
What is your definition of positive semidefinite? Is it that $x^* A x geq 0$ for all vectors $x neq 0$? If so, because $A$ is Hermitian, then it is unitarily diagonalizable. Hence, by a change of variables, if $A = UDU^*$, where $U$ is unitary and $D$ is diagonal. Then $0 leq x^* A x = (Ux)^* D Ux = y^* D y$ for all vectors $y neq 0$ (since unitary matrices are bijective). Hence, taking $y$ to be a standard basis vector gives that each entry of $D$ is nonnegative, or that the eigenvalues of $A$ are nonnegative. So my definition and yours are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:50
$begingroup$
What is your definition of positive semidefinite? Is it that $x^* A x geq 0$ for all vectors $x neq 0$? If so, because $A$ is Hermitian, then it is unitarily diagonalizable. Hence, by a change of variables, if $A = UDU^*$, where $U$ is unitary and $D$ is diagonal. Then $0 leq x^* A x = (Ux)^* D Ux = y^* D y$ for all vectors $y neq 0$ (since unitary matrices are bijective). Hence, taking $y$ to be a standard basis vector gives that each entry of $D$ is nonnegative, or that the eigenvalues of $A$ are nonnegative. So my definition and yours are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– OldGodzilla
Jan 15 at 17:50
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3074648%2fhow-to-show-the-trace-inequality-of-two-p-s-d-matrices-texttrx-leq-texttr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
What does $X preceq Y$ mean? That $Y-X$ is positive semidefinite?
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:04
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: Yes
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
Then each diagonal entry in $Y-X$ is nonnegative.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 15 at 17:07
$begingroup$
@ Lord Shark the Unknown: You are right. Then to get the inequality we need use this fact and sum over the diagonals to get the result!
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 15 at 17:39