Symplectic equivalent of commuting matricesProving “almost all matrices over C are diagonalizable”.Polar decomposition for quaternionic matrices?Characterizing symplectic matrices relative to a partial Iwasawa decompositionApproximating commuting matrices by commuting diagonalizable matricesSymplectic block-diagonalization of a real symmetric Hamiltonian matrixDo skew symmetric matrices ever naturally represent linear transformations?Constant symplectic structureCenter of matricesDiagonalization of real symmetric matrices with symplectic matricesIs every stable matrix orthogonally similar to a $D$-skew-symmetric matrix?
Symplectic equivalent of commuting matrices
Proving “almost all matrices over C are diagonalizable”.Polar decomposition for quaternionic matrices?Characterizing symplectic matrices relative to a partial Iwasawa decompositionApproximating commuting matrices by commuting diagonalizable matricesSymplectic block-diagonalization of a real symmetric Hamiltonian matrixDo skew symmetric matrices ever naturally represent linear transformations?Constant symplectic structureCenter of matricesDiagonalization of real symmetric matrices with symplectic matricesIs every stable matrix orthogonally similar to a $D$-skew-symmetric matrix?
$begingroup$
It is well known what happens if two real symmetric matrices commute, i.e. if we have two matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $A=A^T$, $B=B^T$ and $AB=BA$. The answer is given in terms of diagonalization: there is a unitary matrix $M$ such that $A$ and $B$ are transformed into $A'=M^TAM$ and $B'=M^TBM$, and both $A'$ and $B'$ are diagonal.
Here I'm asking if any analogous property holds in the following case.
$A$ and $B$ are symmetric, i.e. $A=A^T$ and $B=B^T$. The following property holds:
$$AOmega B=BOmega A$$ (1)
where $Omega$ is the matrix defining the symplectic bilinear form (skew-symmetric, nonsingular, and hollow), e.g.:
$$Omega = beginbmatrix0 & 0 & 1 & 0\0 & 0 & 0 & 1\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 endbmatrix$$
The allowed transformations are the symplectic matrices $M$, i.e. matrices for which the following holds:
$$M^TOmega M=Omega$$
The transformed matrices are $A'=M^TAM$ and $B'=M^TBM$.
My question is if there is a form into which $A'$ and $B'$ can be put, by means of a suitable $M$, provided that Eq.1 holds.
linear-algebra sg.symplectic-geometry
asked 5 hours ago
Doriano BrogioliDoriano Brogioli
361
New contributor
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is well known what happens if two real symmetric matrices commute, i.e. if we have two matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $A=A^T$, $B=B^T$ and $AB=BA$. The answer is given in terms of diagonalization: there is a unitary matrix $M$ such that $A$ and $B$ are transformed into $A'=M^TAM$ and $B'=M^TBM$, and both $A'$ and $B'$ are diagonal.
Here I'm asking if any analogous property holds in the following case.
$A$ and $B$ are symmetric, i.e. $A=A^T$ and $B=B^T$. The following property holds:
$$AOmega B=BOmega A$$ (1)
where $Omega$ is the matrix defining the symplectic bilinear form (skew-symmetric, nonsingular, and hollow), e.g.:
$$Omega = beginbmatrix0 & 0 & 1 & 0\0 & 0 & 0 & 1\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 endbmatrix$$
The allowed transformations are the symplectic matrices $M$, i.e. matrices for which the following holds:
$$M^TOmega M=Omega$$
The transformed matrices are $A'=M^TAM$ and $B'=M^TBM$.
My question is if there is a form into which $A'$ and $B'$ can be put, by means of a suitable $M$, provided that Eq.1 holds.
linear-algebra sg.symplectic-geometry
asked 5 hours ago
Doriano BrogioliDoriano Brogioli
361
New contributor
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
No idea, but a comment, a bit unrelated: for many computations with such things it's better to write $Omega$ as $diag(M,ldots,M)$ where $M=(^0_-1 ^1_0)$. Of course, in practice, it doesn't make that much of a difference.
$endgroup$
– Teo Banica
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
For $n=2$, there's the formula $Omega AOmega = (det A) A^-1T$ ($=(det A) A^-1$ here), so if $det A=det B$, then (1) says that $A^-1B=B^-1A$, and in general, there's an extra constant. Of course, all this is a far cry from the full question, but it might give a hint.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is well known what happens if two real symmetric matrices commute, i.e. if we have two matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $A=A^T$, $B=B^T$ and $AB=BA$. The answer is given in terms of diagonalization: there is a unitary matrix $M$ such that $A$ and $B$ are transformed into $A'=M^TAM$ and $B'=M^TBM$, and both $A'$ and $B'$ are diagonal.
Here I'm asking if any analogous property holds in the following case.
$A$ and $B$ are symmetric, i.e. $A=A^T$ and $B=B^T$. The following property holds:
$$AOmega B=BOmega A$$ (1)
where $Omega$ is the matrix defining the symplectic bilinear form (skew-symmetric, nonsingular, and hollow), e.g.:
$$Omega = beginbmatrix0 & 0 & 1 & 0\0 & 0 & 0 & 1\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 endbmatrix$$
The allowed transformations are the symplectic matrices $M$, i.e. matrices for which the following holds:
$$M^TOmega M=Omega$$
The transformed matrices are $A'=M^TAM$ and $B'=M^TBM$.
My question is if there is a form into which $A'$ and $B'$ can be put, by means of a suitable $M$, provided that Eq.1 holds.
linear-algebra sg.symplectic-geometry
asked 5 hours ago
Doriano BrogioliDoriano Brogioli
361
New contributor
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
It is well known what happens if two real symmetric matrices commute, i.e. if we have two matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $A=A^T$, $B=B^T$ and $AB=BA$. The answer is given in terms of diagonalization: there is a unitary matrix $M$ such that $A$ and $B$ are transformed into $A'=M^TAM$ and $B'=M^TBM$, and both $A'$ and $B'$ are diagonal.
Here I'm asking if any analogous property holds in the following case.
$A$ and $B$ are symmetric, i.e. $A=A^T$ and $B=B^T$. The following property holds:
$$AOmega B=BOmega A$$ (1)
where $Omega$ is the matrix defining the symplectic bilinear form (skew-symmetric, nonsingular, and hollow), e.g.:
$$Omega = beginbmatrix0 & 0 & 1 & 0\0 & 0 & 0 & 1\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 endbmatrix$$
The allowed transformations are the symplectic matrices $M$, i.e. matrices for which the following holds:
$$M^TOmega M=Omega$$
The transformed matrices are $A'=M^TAM$ and $B'=M^TBM$.
My question is if there is a form into which $A'$ and $B'$ can be put, by means of a suitable $M$, provided that Eq.1 holds.
linear-algebra sg.symplectic-geometry
linear-algebra sg.symplectic-geometry
asked 5 hours ago
Doriano BrogioliDoriano Brogioli
361
New contributor
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Doriano BrogioliDoriano Brogioli
361
New contributor
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Doriano BrogioliDoriano Brogioli
361
New contributor
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Doriano BrogioliDoriano Brogioli
361
asked 5 hours ago
Doriano BrogioliDoriano Brogioli
361
361
New contributor
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
$begingroup$
No idea, but a comment, a bit unrelated: for many computations with such things it's better to write $Omega$ as $diag(M,ldots,M)$ where $M=(^0_-1 ^1_0)$. Of course, in practice, it doesn't make that much of a difference.
$endgroup$
– Teo Banica
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
For $n=2$, there's the formula $Omega AOmega = (det A) A^-1T$ ($=(det A) A^-1$ here), so if $det A=det B$, then (1) says that $A^-1B=B^-1A$, and in general, there's an extra constant. Of course, all this is a far cry from the full question, but it might give a hint.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
No idea, but a comment, a bit unrelated: for many computations with such things it's better to write $Omega$ as $diag(M,ldots,M)$ where $M=(^0_-1 ^1_0)$. Of course, in practice, it doesn't make that much of a difference.
$endgroup$
– Teo Banica
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
For $n=2$, there's the formula $Omega AOmega = (det A) A^-1T$ ($=(det A) A^-1$ here), so if $det A=det B$, then (1) says that $A^-1B=B^-1A$, and in general, there's an extra constant. Of course, all this is a far cry from the full question, but it might give a hint.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
4 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
No idea, but a comment, a bit unrelated: for many computations with such things it's better to write $Omega$ as $diag(M,ldots,M)$ where $M=(^0_-1 ^1_0)$. Of course, in practice, it doesn't make that much of a difference.
$endgroup$
– Teo Banica
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
No idea, but a comment, a bit unrelated: for many computations with such things it's better to write $Omega$ as $diag(M,ldots,M)$ where $M=(^0_-1 ^1_0)$. Of course, in practice, it doesn't make that much of a difference.
$endgroup$
– Teo Banica
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
For $n=2$, there's the formula $Omega AOmega = (det A) A^-1T$ ($=(det A) A^-1$ here), so if $det A=det B$, then (1) says that $A^-1B=B^-1A$, and in general, there's an extra constant. Of course, all this is a far cry from the full question, but it might give a hint.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
For $n=2$, there's the formula $Omega AOmega = (det A) A^-1T$ ($=(det A) A^-1$ here), so if $det A=det B$, then (1) says that $A^-1B=B^-1A$, and in general, there's an extra constant. Of course, all this is a far cry from the full question, but it might give a hint.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The symplectic counterpart of the fact that a family of commuting diagonalizable matrices is simultaneously diagonalizable is discussed in section 3.1 of On the diagonalizability of a matrix by a symplectic equivalence, similarity or congruence transformation
answered 3 hours ago
Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker
79.7k9190292
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think this paper ever considers condition (1) of the OP; "commuting" there just means commuting.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
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
);
);
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327421%2fsymplectic-equivalent-of-commuting-matrices%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The symplectic counterpart of the fact that a family of commuting diagonalizable matrices is simultaneously diagonalizable is discussed in section 3.1 of On the diagonalizability of a matrix by a symplectic equivalence, similarity or congruence transformation
answered 3 hours ago
Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker
79.7k9190292
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think this paper ever considers condition (1) of the OP; "commuting" there just means commuting.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The symplectic counterpart of the fact that a family of commuting diagonalizable matrices is simultaneously diagonalizable is discussed in section 3.1 of On the diagonalizability of a matrix by a symplectic equivalence, similarity or congruence transformation
answered 3 hours ago
Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker
79.7k9190292
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think this paper ever considers condition (1) of the OP; "commuting" there just means commuting.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The symplectic counterpart of the fact that a family of commuting diagonalizable matrices is simultaneously diagonalizable is discussed in section 3.1 of On the diagonalizability of a matrix by a symplectic equivalence, similarity or congruence transformation
answered 3 hours ago
Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker
79.7k9190292
$endgroup$
The symplectic counterpart of the fact that a family of commuting diagonalizable matrices is simultaneously diagonalizable is discussed in section 3.1 of On the diagonalizability of a matrix by a symplectic equivalence, similarity or congruence transformation
answered 3 hours ago
Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker
79.7k9190292
answered 3 hours ago
Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker
79.7k9190292
answered 3 hours ago
Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker
79.7k9190292
answered 3 hours ago
Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker
79.7k9190292
79.7k9190292
$begingroup$
I don't think this paper ever considers condition (1) of the OP; "commuting" there just means commuting.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't think this paper ever considers condition (1) of the OP; "commuting" there just means commuting.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think this paper ever considers condition (1) of the OP; "commuting" there just means commuting.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think this paper ever considers condition (1) of the OP; "commuting" there just means commuting.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Doriano Brogioli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- 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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327421%2fsymplectic-equivalent-of-commuting-matrices%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
2
$begingroup$
No idea, but a comment, a bit unrelated: for many computations with such things it's better to write $Omega$ as $diag(M,ldots,M)$ where $M=(^0_-1 ^1_0)$. Of course, in practice, it doesn't make that much of a difference.
$endgroup$
– Teo Banica
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
For $n=2$, there's the formula $Omega AOmega = (det A) A^-1T$ ($=(det A) A^-1$ here), so if $det A=det B$, then (1) says that $A^-1B=B^-1A$, and in general, there's an extra constant. Of course, all this is a far cry from the full question, but it might give a hint.
$endgroup$
– Christian Remling
4 hours ago