Cholesky Decomposition - Proof For Positive Semi-definite Matrices

Proof For Positive Semi-definite Matrices

The above algorithms show that every positive definite matrix A has a Cholesky decomposition. This result can be extended to the positive semi-definite case by a limiting argument. The argument is not fully constructive, i.e., it gives no explicit numerical algorithms for computing Cholesky factors.

If A is an n-by-n positive semi-definite matrix, then the sequence {Ak} = {A + (1/k)In} consists of positive definite matrices. (This is an immediate consequence of, for example, the spectral mapping theorem for the polynomial functional calculus.) Also,

AkA

in operator norm. From the positive definite case, each Ak has Cholesky decomposition Ak = LkL*k. By property of the operator norm,

So {Lk} is a bounded set in the Banach space of operators, therefore relatively compact (because the underlying vector space is finite dimensional). Consequently it has a convergent subsequence, also denoted by {Lk}, with limit L. It can be easily checked that this L has the desired properties, i.e. A = LL* and L is lower triangular with non-negative diagonal entries: for all x and y,

Therefore A = LL*. Because the underlying vector space is finite dimensional, all topologies on the space of operators are equivalent. So Lk tends to L in norm means Lk tends to L entrywise. This in turn implies that, since each Lk is lower triangular with non-negative diagonal entries, L is also.

Read more about this topic:  Cholesky Decomposition

Famous quotes containing the words proof and/or positive:

    Sculpture and painting are very justly called liberal arts; a lively and strong imagination, together with a just observation, being absolutely necessary to excel in either; which, in my opinion, is by no means the case of music, though called a liberal art, and now in Italy placed even above the other two—a proof of the decline of that country.
    Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl Chesterfield (1694–1773)

    Men just don’t “get” that the reason to become involved is for ourselves. Doing more with our children won’t simply make women happier or keep them “off our backs,” but will create a deeper, more positive connection with the kids.
    Ron Taffel (20th century)