On the entries of $LL^t$ where $L in GL_n (mathbb R)$ is lower triangular with positive diagonal entries












0












$begingroup$


Let $L in GL_n (mathbb R)$ be a lower triangular matrix with positive diaginal entries and let $A :=LL^t$ . (note that $A$ is positive definite i.e. $A$ is symmetric and all eigenvalues of $A$ are positive).



Let $A=[a_{ij}] $ and $L=[l_{ij}]$ . If $a_{ij}le 0, forall i>j$, then how to prove that $l_{ij} le 0, forall i >j$ ?



My work: Writing down the product, we have $a_{ij}=sum_{k=1}^n l_{ik}l_{jk}=sum_{kle min {i,j}} l_{ik}l_{jk}$. I don't know what to do next.



Please help.






linear-algebra matrices positive-definite







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Connected : math.stackexchange.com/q/1804322
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 14 at 7:07


















0












$begingroup$


Let $L in GL_n (mathbb R)$ be a lower triangular matrix with positive diaginal entries and let $A :=LL^t$ . (note that $A$ is positive definite i.e. $A$ is symmetric and all eigenvalues of $A$ are positive).



Let $A=[a_{ij}] $ and $L=[l_{ij}]$ . If $a_{ij}le 0, forall i>j$, then how to prove that $l_{ij} le 0, forall i >j$ ?



My work: Writing down the product, we have $a_{ij}=sum_{k=1}^n l_{ik}l_{jk}=sum_{kle min {i,j}} l_{ik}l_{jk}$. I don't know what to do next.



Please help.






linear-algebra matrices positive-definite







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Connected : math.stackexchange.com/q/1804322
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 14 at 7:07
















0












0








0





$begingroup$


Let $L in GL_n (mathbb R)$ be a lower triangular matrix with positive diaginal entries and let $A :=LL^t$ . (note that $A$ is positive definite i.e. $A$ is symmetric and all eigenvalues of $A$ are positive).



Let $A=[a_{ij}] $ and $L=[l_{ij}]$ . If $a_{ij}le 0, forall i>j$, then how to prove that $l_{ij} le 0, forall i >j$ ?



My work: Writing down the product, we have $a_{ij}=sum_{k=1}^n l_{ik}l_{jk}=sum_{kle min {i,j}} l_{ik}l_{jk}$. I don't know what to do next.



Please help.






linear-algebra matrices positive-definite







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $L in GL_n (mathbb R)$ be a lower triangular matrix with positive diaginal entries and let $A :=LL^t$ . (note that $A$ is positive definite i.e. $A$ is symmetric and all eigenvalues of $A$ are positive).



Let $A=[a_{ij}] $ and $L=[l_{ij}]$ . If $a_{ij}le 0, forall i>j$, then how to prove that $l_{ij} le 0, forall i >j$ ?



My work: Writing down the product, we have $a_{ij}=sum_{k=1}^n l_{ik}l_{jk}=sum_{kle min {i,j}} l_{ik}l_{jk}$. I don't know what to do next.



Please help.






linear-algebra matrices positive-definite




linear-algebra matrices positive-definite






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 12 at 5:50







user521337

















asked Jan 12 at 5:36









user521337user521337

1,2201417




1,2201417












  • $begingroup$
    Connected : math.stackexchange.com/q/1804322
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 14 at 7:07




















  • $begingroup$
    Connected : math.stackexchange.com/q/1804322
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 14 at 7:07


















$begingroup$
Connected : math.stackexchange.com/q/1804322
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 14 at 7:07






$begingroup$
Connected : math.stackexchange.com/q/1804322
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 14 at 7:07












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Since $A$ is symmetric, consider only the case $i>j$. You already know



$$a_{ij} = sum_{k=1}^{j} l_{ik}l_{jk}$$



Go row by row. Start from the left, and use $a_{ij} leq 0$ as well as $l_{ii} > 0$ as you proceed down and towards the main diagonal.





  1. $0 geq a_{21} = l_{21}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{21} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  2. $0 geq a_{31} = l_{31}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{31} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  3. $0 geq a_{32} = l_{31}l_{21} + l_{32}l_{22} Rightarrow l_{32} leq 0$, since $l_{21} leq 0$, $l_{31} leq 0$ and $l_{22} > 0$


You should see a pattern emerge, that $a_{ij}$ is the sum of products $l_{ik}l_{jk}$ with $kneq i, kneq j$, which are products of negative numbers or zero (using previous results). Only the last term $l_{ij}l_{jj}$ can be negative. With $l_{jj}$ being positive, $a_{ij} leq 0 Rightarrow l_{ij} leq 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie $a_{31} not leq 0$
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 15:39










  • $begingroup$
    [+1] Probably, there is a way to express it differently but your reasoning is perfectly exact.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    I noticed I had misinterpreted your implication as separated from the others.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie Thank you. Yes, it would have to be formulated stricter than that. But my intent was to give a direction, rather.
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 18:27



















0












$begingroup$

I have a proof for the case $n=2$ ; if



$$underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&0\l_{21}&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L}underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&l_{21}\0&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L^T}=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}a_{11}&a_{12}\a_{21}&a_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{A},$$



we have in particular



$$l_{21}l_{11}=a_{21} tag{1}$$



As $l_{11}>0$, (1) gives :



$$l_{21} leq 0 iff a_{21} leq 0 tag{2}$$



which allows to conclude.



This proof, after discussion with the OP, does not extend to more general cases.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    but in the general case, the sum expression for $a_{ij}$ would contain many more elements ... I don't see how a similar argument proves that ...
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 10:47










  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you don't agree with the re-indexing argument : the important fact is that the sign of $l_{ij}$ is defined by the sign of $a_{ij}$ exclusively.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 10:51










  • $begingroup$
    suppose we're dealing with $3times 3$ ... then $a_{32}=l_{31}l_{21}+l_{32}l_{22}$ ... how does your argument work now ...?
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 11:00










  • $begingroup$
    I am shaked in my argumentation, especialy by the fact that I don't use the "all-negative" property of $A$'s off-diagonal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    I have understood why I couldn't use the argument thinking to the associated quadratic form. Sorry for the inconvenience. I just modified my answer
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:29












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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3070628%2fon-the-entries-of-llt-where-l-in-gl-n-mathbb-r-is-lower-triangular-with%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









2












$begingroup$

Since $A$ is symmetric, consider only the case $i>j$. You already know



$$a_{ij} = sum_{k=1}^{j} l_{ik}l_{jk}$$



Go row by row. Start from the left, and use $a_{ij} leq 0$ as well as $l_{ii} > 0$ as you proceed down and towards the main diagonal.





  1. $0 geq a_{21} = l_{21}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{21} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  2. $0 geq a_{31} = l_{31}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{31} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  3. $0 geq a_{32} = l_{31}l_{21} + l_{32}l_{22} Rightarrow l_{32} leq 0$, since $l_{21} leq 0$, $l_{31} leq 0$ and $l_{22} > 0$


You should see a pattern emerge, that $a_{ij}$ is the sum of products $l_{ik}l_{jk}$ with $kneq i, kneq j$, which are products of negative numbers or zero (using previous results). Only the last term $l_{ij}l_{jj}$ can be negative. With $l_{jj}$ being positive, $a_{ij} leq 0 Rightarrow l_{ij} leq 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie $a_{31} not leq 0$
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 15:39










  • $begingroup$
    [+1] Probably, there is a way to express it differently but your reasoning is perfectly exact.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    I noticed I had misinterpreted your implication as separated from the others.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie Thank you. Yes, it would have to be formulated stricter than that. But my intent was to give a direction, rather.
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 18:27
















2












$begingroup$

Since $A$ is symmetric, consider only the case $i>j$. You already know



$$a_{ij} = sum_{k=1}^{j} l_{ik}l_{jk}$$



Go row by row. Start from the left, and use $a_{ij} leq 0$ as well as $l_{ii} > 0$ as you proceed down and towards the main diagonal.





  1. $0 geq a_{21} = l_{21}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{21} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  2. $0 geq a_{31} = l_{31}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{31} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  3. $0 geq a_{32} = l_{31}l_{21} + l_{32}l_{22} Rightarrow l_{32} leq 0$, since $l_{21} leq 0$, $l_{31} leq 0$ and $l_{22} > 0$


You should see a pattern emerge, that $a_{ij}$ is the sum of products $l_{ik}l_{jk}$ with $kneq i, kneq j$, which are products of negative numbers or zero (using previous results). Only the last term $l_{ij}l_{jj}$ can be negative. With $l_{jj}$ being positive, $a_{ij} leq 0 Rightarrow l_{ij} leq 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie $a_{31} not leq 0$
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 15:39










  • $begingroup$
    [+1] Probably, there is a way to express it differently but your reasoning is perfectly exact.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    I noticed I had misinterpreted your implication as separated from the others.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie Thank you. Yes, it would have to be formulated stricter than that. But my intent was to give a direction, rather.
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 18:27














2












2








2





$begingroup$

Since $A$ is symmetric, consider only the case $i>j$. You already know



$$a_{ij} = sum_{k=1}^{j} l_{ik}l_{jk}$$



Go row by row. Start from the left, and use $a_{ij} leq 0$ as well as $l_{ii} > 0$ as you proceed down and towards the main diagonal.





  1. $0 geq a_{21} = l_{21}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{21} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  2. $0 geq a_{31} = l_{31}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{31} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  3. $0 geq a_{32} = l_{31}l_{21} + l_{32}l_{22} Rightarrow l_{32} leq 0$, since $l_{21} leq 0$, $l_{31} leq 0$ and $l_{22} > 0$


You should see a pattern emerge, that $a_{ij}$ is the sum of products $l_{ik}l_{jk}$ with $kneq i, kneq j$, which are products of negative numbers or zero (using previous results). Only the last term $l_{ij}l_{jj}$ can be negative. With $l_{jj}$ being positive, $a_{ij} leq 0 Rightarrow l_{ij} leq 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Since $A$ is symmetric, consider only the case $i>j$. You already know



$$a_{ij} = sum_{k=1}^{j} l_{ik}l_{jk}$$



Go row by row. Start from the left, and use $a_{ij} leq 0$ as well as $l_{ii} > 0$ as you proceed down and towards the main diagonal.





  1. $0 geq a_{21} = l_{21}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{21} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  2. $0 geq a_{31} = l_{31}l_{11} Rightarrow l_{31} leq 0$, since $l_{11} > 0$


  3. $0 geq a_{32} = l_{31}l_{21} + l_{32}l_{22} Rightarrow l_{32} leq 0$, since $l_{21} leq 0$, $l_{31} leq 0$ and $l_{22} > 0$


You should see a pattern emerge, that $a_{ij}$ is the sum of products $l_{ik}l_{jk}$ with $kneq i, kneq j$, which are products of negative numbers or zero (using previous results). Only the last term $l_{ij}l_{jj}$ can be negative. With $l_{jj}$ being positive, $a_{ij} leq 0 Rightarrow l_{ij} leq 0$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 12 at 19:38









jgbjgb

14813




14813








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie $a_{31} not leq 0$
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 15:39










  • $begingroup$
    [+1] Probably, there is a way to express it differently but your reasoning is perfectly exact.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    I noticed I had misinterpreted your implication as separated from the others.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie Thank you. Yes, it would have to be formulated stricter than that. But my intent was to give a direction, rather.
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 18:27














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie $a_{31} not leq 0$
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 15:39










  • $begingroup$
    [+1] Probably, there is a way to express it differently but your reasoning is perfectly exact.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    I noticed I had misinterpreted your implication as separated from the others.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 20 at 17:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JeanMarie Thank you. Yes, it would have to be formulated stricter than that. But my intent was to give a direction, rather.
    $endgroup$
    – jgb
    Jan 20 at 18:27








1




1




$begingroup$
@JeanMarie $a_{31} not leq 0$
$endgroup$
– jgb
Jan 20 at 15:39




$begingroup$
@JeanMarie $a_{31} not leq 0$
$endgroup$
– jgb
Jan 20 at 15:39












$begingroup$
[+1] Probably, there is a way to express it differently but your reasoning is perfectly exact.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 20 at 17:36




$begingroup$
[+1] Probably, there is a way to express it differently but your reasoning is perfectly exact.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 20 at 17:36












$begingroup$
I noticed I had misinterpreted your implication as separated from the others.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 20 at 17:37




$begingroup$
I noticed I had misinterpreted your implication as separated from the others.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 20 at 17:37












$begingroup$
@JeanMarie Thank you. Yes, it would have to be formulated stricter than that. But my intent was to give a direction, rather.
$endgroup$
– jgb
Jan 20 at 18:27




$begingroup$
@JeanMarie Thank you. Yes, it would have to be formulated stricter than that. But my intent was to give a direction, rather.
$endgroup$
– jgb
Jan 20 at 18:27











0












$begingroup$

I have a proof for the case $n=2$ ; if



$$underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&0\l_{21}&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L}underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&l_{21}\0&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L^T}=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}a_{11}&a_{12}\a_{21}&a_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{A},$$



we have in particular



$$l_{21}l_{11}=a_{21} tag{1}$$



As $l_{11}>0$, (1) gives :



$$l_{21} leq 0 iff a_{21} leq 0 tag{2}$$



which allows to conclude.



This proof, after discussion with the OP, does not extend to more general cases.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    but in the general case, the sum expression for $a_{ij}$ would contain many more elements ... I don't see how a similar argument proves that ...
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 10:47










  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you don't agree with the re-indexing argument : the important fact is that the sign of $l_{ij}$ is defined by the sign of $a_{ij}$ exclusively.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 10:51










  • $begingroup$
    suppose we're dealing with $3times 3$ ... then $a_{32}=l_{31}l_{21}+l_{32}l_{22}$ ... how does your argument work now ...?
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 11:00










  • $begingroup$
    I am shaked in my argumentation, especialy by the fact that I don't use the "all-negative" property of $A$'s off-diagonal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    I have understood why I couldn't use the argument thinking to the associated quadratic form. Sorry for the inconvenience. I just modified my answer
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:29
















0












$begingroup$

I have a proof for the case $n=2$ ; if



$$underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&0\l_{21}&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L}underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&l_{21}\0&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L^T}=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}a_{11}&a_{12}\a_{21}&a_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{A},$$



we have in particular



$$l_{21}l_{11}=a_{21} tag{1}$$



As $l_{11}>0$, (1) gives :



$$l_{21} leq 0 iff a_{21} leq 0 tag{2}$$



which allows to conclude.



This proof, after discussion with the OP, does not extend to more general cases.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    but in the general case, the sum expression for $a_{ij}$ would contain many more elements ... I don't see how a similar argument proves that ...
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 10:47










  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you don't agree with the re-indexing argument : the important fact is that the sign of $l_{ij}$ is defined by the sign of $a_{ij}$ exclusively.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 10:51










  • $begingroup$
    suppose we're dealing with $3times 3$ ... then $a_{32}=l_{31}l_{21}+l_{32}l_{22}$ ... how does your argument work now ...?
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 11:00










  • $begingroup$
    I am shaked in my argumentation, especialy by the fact that I don't use the "all-negative" property of $A$'s off-diagonal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    I have understood why I couldn't use the argument thinking to the associated quadratic form. Sorry for the inconvenience. I just modified my answer
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:29














0












0








0





$begingroup$

I have a proof for the case $n=2$ ; if



$$underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&0\l_{21}&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L}underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&l_{21}\0&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L^T}=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}a_{11}&a_{12}\a_{21}&a_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{A},$$



we have in particular



$$l_{21}l_{11}=a_{21} tag{1}$$



As $l_{11}>0$, (1) gives :



$$l_{21} leq 0 iff a_{21} leq 0 tag{2}$$



which allows to conclude.



This proof, after discussion with the OP, does not extend to more general cases.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



I have a proof for the case $n=2$ ; if



$$underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&0\l_{21}&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L}underbrace{begin{pmatrix}l_{11}&l_{21}\0&l_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{L^T}=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}a_{11}&a_{12}\a_{21}&a_{22}end{pmatrix}}_{A},$$



we have in particular



$$l_{21}l_{11}=a_{21} tag{1}$$



As $l_{11}>0$, (1) gives :



$$l_{21} leq 0 iff a_{21} leq 0 tag{2}$$



which allows to conclude.



This proof, after discussion with the OP, does not extend to more general cases.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 12 at 11:27

























answered Jan 12 at 10:33









Jean MarieJean Marie

31.5k42355




31.5k42355












  • $begingroup$
    but in the general case, the sum expression for $a_{ij}$ would contain many more elements ... I don't see how a similar argument proves that ...
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 10:47










  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you don't agree with the re-indexing argument : the important fact is that the sign of $l_{ij}$ is defined by the sign of $a_{ij}$ exclusively.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 10:51










  • $begingroup$
    suppose we're dealing with $3times 3$ ... then $a_{32}=l_{31}l_{21}+l_{32}l_{22}$ ... how does your argument work now ...?
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 11:00










  • $begingroup$
    I am shaked in my argumentation, especialy by the fact that I don't use the "all-negative" property of $A$'s off-diagonal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    I have understood why I couldn't use the argument thinking to the associated quadratic form. Sorry for the inconvenience. I just modified my answer
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:29


















  • $begingroup$
    but in the general case, the sum expression for $a_{ij}$ would contain many more elements ... I don't see how a similar argument proves that ...
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 10:47










  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you don't agree with the re-indexing argument : the important fact is that the sign of $l_{ij}$ is defined by the sign of $a_{ij}$ exclusively.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 10:51










  • $begingroup$
    suppose we're dealing with $3times 3$ ... then $a_{32}=l_{31}l_{21}+l_{32}l_{22}$ ... how does your argument work now ...?
    $endgroup$
    – user521337
    Jan 12 at 11:00










  • $begingroup$
    I am shaked in my argumentation, especialy by the fact that I don't use the "all-negative" property of $A$'s off-diagonal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    I have understood why I couldn't use the argument thinking to the associated quadratic form. Sorry for the inconvenience. I just modified my answer
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 12 at 11:29
















$begingroup$
but in the general case, the sum expression for $a_{ij}$ would contain many more elements ... I don't see how a similar argument proves that ...
$endgroup$
– user521337
Jan 12 at 10:47




$begingroup$
but in the general case, the sum expression for $a_{ij}$ would contain many more elements ... I don't see how a similar argument proves that ...
$endgroup$
– user521337
Jan 12 at 10:47












$begingroup$
I don't see why you don't agree with the re-indexing argument : the important fact is that the sign of $l_{ij}$ is defined by the sign of $a_{ij}$ exclusively.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 12 at 10:51




$begingroup$
I don't see why you don't agree with the re-indexing argument : the important fact is that the sign of $l_{ij}$ is defined by the sign of $a_{ij}$ exclusively.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 12 at 10:51












$begingroup$
suppose we're dealing with $3times 3$ ... then $a_{32}=l_{31}l_{21}+l_{32}l_{22}$ ... how does your argument work now ...?
$endgroup$
– user521337
Jan 12 at 11:00




$begingroup$
suppose we're dealing with $3times 3$ ... then $a_{32}=l_{31}l_{21}+l_{32}l_{22}$ ... how does your argument work now ...?
$endgroup$
– user521337
Jan 12 at 11:00












$begingroup$
I am shaked in my argumentation, especialy by the fact that I don't use the "all-negative" property of $A$'s off-diagonal elements.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 12 at 11:22




$begingroup$
I am shaked in my argumentation, especialy by the fact that I don't use the "all-negative" property of $A$'s off-diagonal elements.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 12 at 11:22












$begingroup$
I have understood why I couldn't use the argument thinking to the associated quadratic form. Sorry for the inconvenience. I just modified my answer
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 12 at 11:29




$begingroup$
I have understood why I couldn't use the argument thinking to the associated quadratic form. Sorry for the inconvenience. I just modified my answer
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 12 at 11:29


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3070628%2fon-the-entries-of-llt-where-l-in-gl-n-mathbb-r-is-lower-triangular-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid ...
Read more

Cabo Verde

Image
  Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º) ...
Read more

Gyllenstierna

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid ...
Read more