3
$\begingroup$

Suppose $A$ is a $k_1\times k_2$ matrix with real entries, $k_1<k_2$. Let $M$ be the matrix \begin{equation} M:=\begin{pmatrix} 0_{k_1} & A\\ A^\top & 0_{k_2} \end{pmatrix}, \end{equation} where $0_k$ denotes the $k\times k$ zero matrix. I know that if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $M$ then $\lambda^2$ must be an eigenvalue of $A^\top A$. Since $k_2>k_1$, we can immediately conclude that $M$ has at least $k_2 - k_1$ zero eigenvalues.

I wish to obtain a generalization of this observation in the following sense. Suppose $A_{12},A_{13}$ and $A_{23}$ are $k_1\times k_2$, $k_1\times k_3$ and $k_2\times k_3$ dimensional matrices respectively and let \begin{equation} M:=\begin{pmatrix} 0_{k_1} & A_{12} & A_{13} \\ A_{12}^\top& 0_{k_2} & A_{23} \\ A_{13}^\top& A_{23}^\top& 0_{k_3} \end{pmatrix}. \end{equation} My conjecture is that if $k_3>k_1+k_2$, then $M$ contains at least $k_3-k_1-k_2$ zero eigenvalues. I can't figure out how to prove it - any help/hint is appreciated!

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

If you decompose $M=\begin{pmatrix} X_{q\times q}&Y_{q\times k_3}\\ (Y_{q\times k_3})^{\rm T}&0_{k_3\times k_3}\end{pmatrix}$ into four block matrices, with $q=k_1+k_2$, then the determinant equals $$\det M=(-1)^{k_3}(\det X_{q\times q})\det[(Y_{q\times k_3})^{\rm T}X_{q\times q}^{-1}Y_{q\times k_3}].$$ The second determinant has a root of multiplicity $k_3-q=k_3-k_1-k_2$.

For $k_1\neq k_2$ the matrix $X$ is not invertible: We can give it an infinitesimal perturbation, $M\mapsto M_\epsilon=M+\epsilon 1_{q\times q}$, and then $\det (\lambda-M_\epsilon)=\lambda^{k_3-q}f_\epsilon(\lambda)$. The continuity of the determinant in the matrix elements ensures that the multiplicity of the root 0 cannot decrease in the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I see. What about the first determinant there, wouldn't that have a root of multiplicity k2-k1? $\endgroup$ Commented May 2, 2021 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ this root would cancel with the pole of the inverse $X^{-1}$. $\endgroup$ Commented May 2, 2021 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ I think I understand what you meant now, thanks a lot. A further question: if in general I have $k_1<k_2<\ldots<k_n$ diagonal blocks of zero, without the assumption $k_n>\sum_{i\ne n}k_i$, can I say anything at all about the matrix? $\endgroup$ Commented May 2, 2021 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ My surmise is that you need one of the $k_i$'s, say $k_m$ to be larger than the sum of all the others, to have $k_m-\sum_{i\neq m}k_i$ zero eigenvalues. $\endgroup$ Commented May 2, 2021 at 19:06

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.