4
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathbb{S}^{dn} \ni X \succeq 0$ with $d,n \in \mathbb{N}$, where $X \succeq 0$ indicates that $X$ is positive semidefinite. Now partition $X$ into the block form \begin{gather} \begin{pmatrix} X_{11} & X_{12} & \cdots & X_{1d} \\ * & X_{22} & \cdots & X_{2d} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ * & * & \cdots & X_{dd} \\ \end{pmatrix}, \; \; X_{ii} \in \mathbb{S}^{n} \;\; \text{and} \;\; X_{i,j} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n} \;\; \text{with}\;\; i \neq j \end{gather} where the notation $*$ represents the symmetric blocks. Does the matrix inequality \begin{equation} \mathbb{S}^{dn} \ni I_d \otimes \left( \sum_{i=1}^d X_{ii} \right) = \begin{pmatrix} \sum_{i=1}^d X_{ii} & 0_{n\times n} & \cdots & 0_{n\times n} \\ 0_{n\times n} & \sum_{i=1}^d X_{ii} & \cdots & 0_{n\times n} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0_{n\times n} & 0_{n\times n} & \cdots & \sum_{i=1}^d X_{ii} \\ \end{pmatrix} \succeq X \end{equation} hold for any $\mathbb{S}^{dn} \ni X \succeq 0$?

I believe the above matrix inequality might be considered as an extension of the trace inequality $\mathsf{tr}(X)I_n \succeq X$ with $\mathbb{S}^{n} \ni X \succeq 0$. That is why I believe the inequality is true, however I am not able to give a proof for it.


A followed-up question:

Thank you for the suggestions, indeed, the above inequality is not ture. However, I would like to have a follow-up question which is in fact the original property I intended to prove.

Given matrices $X := \begin{bmatrix} X_1 & X_2 & \cdots & X_d \end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{ n \times d \rho n} $ and $\mathbb{S}^{n} \ni U \succ 0$ with $n;d; \rho \in \mathbb{N}$, where the notation $\succ$ standards for the positive definite relation. Let $ \widehat{X} := \begin{bmatrix} X_1 \\ X_2 \\ \vdots \\ X_d \end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{dn \times \rho n}$, can we prove \begin{equation} I_d \otimes \left( \widehat{X}^\top \left( I_d \otimes U \right) \widehat{X} \right) \succeq X^\top UX \end{equation} for any given $X \in \mathbb{R}^{ n \times d \rho n}$ and $U \succ 0$?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your question is exactly equivalent to whether or not the reduction criterion from quantum information theory holds for all quantum states. It indeed holds for all separable states, but it can fail for entangled states (for example, Nik Weaver's answer is the maximally-entangled Bell state). $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 30, 2018 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ @NathanielJohnston Thanks for your comments, are there general mathematics results on this criterion without using the framework of quantum information theory? I have made a follow-up question. Thanks again for your comments. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 30, 2018 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Johannes I know this question is from seven years ago. However, the follow-up question should be posted as a separate question (linking this one), and the answer by Nik Weaver should be marked as accepted if it successfully addresses the original question. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27 at 16:25

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

No, this is false. Consider $\left[\matrix{1&0&0&1\cr 0&0&0&0\cr 0&0&0&0\cr 1&0&0&1}\right]$, regarded as a $2 \times 2$ matrix of $2\times 2$ blocks. This is a rank 1 matrix with operator norm 2 but the diagonal sum you describe is the $4\times 4$ identity, whose norm is 1. So the latter cannot be larger than the former.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much for your comment. Indeed, that inequality is not true. I have made a follow-up question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 30, 2018 at 21:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.