Is $rm rank ( A^-1/2 B A^-1/2 )= 1$, if $A$ is symmetric (positive definite) and full-rank, and $rm rank (B) = 1$?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Is $rm rank left( A^-1/2 B A^-1/2 right) = 1$, if $A in M_n(mathbbR)$ is symmetric (positive definite) and full-rank, but $rm rank (B) = 1 in M_n(F)$?



Numerically, it seems to be true. But, I don't know yet how to prove it analytically.



I am sorry if this question is trivial.







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    Is $rm rank left( A^-1/2 B A^-1/2 right) = 1$, if $A in M_n(mathbbR)$ is symmetric (positive definite) and full-rank, but $rm rank (B) = 1 in M_n(F)$?



    Numerically, it seems to be true. But, I don't know yet how to prove it analytically.



    I am sorry if this question is trivial.







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      Is $rm rank left( A^-1/2 B A^-1/2 right) = 1$, if $A in M_n(mathbbR)$ is symmetric (positive definite) and full-rank, but $rm rank (B) = 1 in M_n(F)$?



      Numerically, it seems to be true. But, I don't know yet how to prove it analytically.



      I am sorry if this question is trivial.







      share|cite|improve this question














      Is $rm rank left( A^-1/2 B A^-1/2 right) = 1$, if $A in M_n(mathbbR)$ is symmetric (positive definite) and full-rank, but $rm rank (B) = 1 in M_n(F)$?



      Numerically, it seems to be true. But, I don't know yet how to prove it analytically.



      I am sorry if this question is trivial.









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 23 at 11:22









      Henning Makholm

      229k16295526




      229k16295526










      asked Aug 23 at 10:31









      user550103

      549213




      549213




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Theorem: if $A,B$ are $ntimes n$ matrices of full-rank and rank one respectively then $ABA$ is of rank one.



          Proof: since $B$ is rank one it can be expressed as $$B=uv^T$$where $u$ and $v$ are two non-zero n-tuple vectors. Therefore $$ABA=Auv^TA=(Au)(A^Tv)^T$$where $Au$ and $A^Tv$ are both two other vectors and therefore their multiplication is another rank one matrix. So $ABA$ is rank one and our proof is complete. You can replace $A$ with $A^-frac12$ in your own question.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. This makes sense to me. This is what I was looking for.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          Multiplying by the left or right by an invertible matrix does not change the rank (or nullity).



          In this case it is easy to check, $BA^-1/2$ has rank at most one, because the rank is the dimension of its image equals the image of $B$, because $A^-1/2$ is invertible and hence its image is the whole space. We see that the image of $A^-1/2BA^-1/2$ is at most one dimension. However it does not have rank zero since then it would be zero, but $A^1/2(A^-1/2BA^-1/2)A^1/2 = B neq 0$. So, it must be rank $1$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for your explanation. I like the answer. So, +1. But I was seeking a bit more rigorous proof.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48










          • Thanks, but in what way is it not rigorous, in your view?
            – 4-ier
            Aug 24 at 5:53










          • As I said that, I indeed like your answer. Moreover, you have given a very good geometrical view. So, I have to merge both of your proofs. If I had the possibility to accept both, then I would have done that. I hope you understand me. I sincerely appreciate your answer and efforts.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:59










          • Ok. I just interpreted 'not rigorous enough' as derogatory, because the proof is rigorous.
            – 4-ier
            Aug 25 at 3:39






          • 1




            I apologize if I sounded that way. So, I take back my words because I didn't mean that way.
            – user550103
            Aug 25 at 6:49










          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: "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',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          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%2f2891956%2fis-rm-rank-a-1-2-b-a-1-2-1-if-a-is-symmetric-positiv%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Theorem: if $A,B$ are $ntimes n$ matrices of full-rank and rank one respectively then $ABA$ is of rank one.



          Proof: since $B$ is rank one it can be expressed as $$B=uv^T$$where $u$ and $v$ are two non-zero n-tuple vectors. Therefore $$ABA=Auv^TA=(Au)(A^Tv)^T$$where $Au$ and $A^Tv$ are both two other vectors and therefore their multiplication is another rank one matrix. So $ABA$ is rank one and our proof is complete. You can replace $A$ with $A^-frac12$ in your own question.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. This makes sense to me. This is what I was looking for.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48














          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Theorem: if $A,B$ are $ntimes n$ matrices of full-rank and rank one respectively then $ABA$ is of rank one.



          Proof: since $B$ is rank one it can be expressed as $$B=uv^T$$where $u$ and $v$ are two non-zero n-tuple vectors. Therefore $$ABA=Auv^TA=(Au)(A^Tv)^T$$where $Au$ and $A^Tv$ are both two other vectors and therefore their multiplication is another rank one matrix. So $ABA$ is rank one and our proof is complete. You can replace $A$ with $A^-frac12$ in your own question.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. This makes sense to me. This is what I was looking for.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48












          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          Theorem: if $A,B$ are $ntimes n$ matrices of full-rank and rank one respectively then $ABA$ is of rank one.



          Proof: since $B$ is rank one it can be expressed as $$B=uv^T$$where $u$ and $v$ are two non-zero n-tuple vectors. Therefore $$ABA=Auv^TA=(Au)(A^Tv)^T$$where $Au$ and $A^Tv$ are both two other vectors and therefore their multiplication is another rank one matrix. So $ABA$ is rank one and our proof is complete. You can replace $A$ with $A^-frac12$ in your own question.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Theorem: if $A,B$ are $ntimes n$ matrices of full-rank and rank one respectively then $ABA$ is of rank one.



          Proof: since $B$ is rank one it can be expressed as $$B=uv^T$$where $u$ and $v$ are two non-zero n-tuple vectors. Therefore $$ABA=Auv^TA=(Au)(A^Tv)^T$$where $Au$ and $A^Tv$ are both two other vectors and therefore their multiplication is another rank one matrix. So $ABA$ is rank one and our proof is complete. You can replace $A$ with $A^-frac12$ in your own question.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 23 at 11:19









          Mostafa Ayaz

          10.1k3730




          10.1k3730











          • Thank you. This makes sense to me. This is what I was looking for.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48
















          • Thank you. This makes sense to me. This is what I was looking for.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48















          Thank you. This makes sense to me. This is what I was looking for.
          – user550103
          Aug 24 at 5:48




          Thank you. This makes sense to me. This is what I was looking for.
          – user550103
          Aug 24 at 5:48










          up vote
          3
          down vote













          Multiplying by the left or right by an invertible matrix does not change the rank (or nullity).



          In this case it is easy to check, $BA^-1/2$ has rank at most one, because the rank is the dimension of its image equals the image of $B$, because $A^-1/2$ is invertible and hence its image is the whole space. We see that the image of $A^-1/2BA^-1/2$ is at most one dimension. However it does not have rank zero since then it would be zero, but $A^1/2(A^-1/2BA^-1/2)A^1/2 = B neq 0$. So, it must be rank $1$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for your explanation. I like the answer. So, +1. But I was seeking a bit more rigorous proof.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48










          • Thanks, but in what way is it not rigorous, in your view?
            – 4-ier
            Aug 24 at 5:53










          • As I said that, I indeed like your answer. Moreover, you have given a very good geometrical view. So, I have to merge both of your proofs. If I had the possibility to accept both, then I would have done that. I hope you understand me. I sincerely appreciate your answer and efforts.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:59










          • Ok. I just interpreted 'not rigorous enough' as derogatory, because the proof is rigorous.
            – 4-ier
            Aug 25 at 3:39






          • 1




            I apologize if I sounded that way. So, I take back my words because I didn't mean that way.
            – user550103
            Aug 25 at 6:49














          up vote
          3
          down vote













          Multiplying by the left or right by an invertible matrix does not change the rank (or nullity).



          In this case it is easy to check, $BA^-1/2$ has rank at most one, because the rank is the dimension of its image equals the image of $B$, because $A^-1/2$ is invertible and hence its image is the whole space. We see that the image of $A^-1/2BA^-1/2$ is at most one dimension. However it does not have rank zero since then it would be zero, but $A^1/2(A^-1/2BA^-1/2)A^1/2 = B neq 0$. So, it must be rank $1$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for your explanation. I like the answer. So, +1. But I was seeking a bit more rigorous proof.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48










          • Thanks, but in what way is it not rigorous, in your view?
            – 4-ier
            Aug 24 at 5:53










          • As I said that, I indeed like your answer. Moreover, you have given a very good geometrical view. So, I have to merge both of your proofs. If I had the possibility to accept both, then I would have done that. I hope you understand me. I sincerely appreciate your answer and efforts.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:59










          • Ok. I just interpreted 'not rigorous enough' as derogatory, because the proof is rigorous.
            – 4-ier
            Aug 25 at 3:39






          • 1




            I apologize if I sounded that way. So, I take back my words because I didn't mean that way.
            – user550103
            Aug 25 at 6:49












          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          Multiplying by the left or right by an invertible matrix does not change the rank (or nullity).



          In this case it is easy to check, $BA^-1/2$ has rank at most one, because the rank is the dimension of its image equals the image of $B$, because $A^-1/2$ is invertible and hence its image is the whole space. We see that the image of $A^-1/2BA^-1/2$ is at most one dimension. However it does not have rank zero since then it would be zero, but $A^1/2(A^-1/2BA^-1/2)A^1/2 = B neq 0$. So, it must be rank $1$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Multiplying by the left or right by an invertible matrix does not change the rank (or nullity).



          In this case it is easy to check, $BA^-1/2$ has rank at most one, because the rank is the dimension of its image equals the image of $B$, because $A^-1/2$ is invertible and hence its image is the whole space. We see that the image of $A^-1/2BA^-1/2$ is at most one dimension. However it does not have rank zero since then it would be zero, but $A^1/2(A^-1/2BA^-1/2)A^1/2 = B neq 0$. So, it must be rank $1$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 23 at 10:43









          4-ier

          5989




          5989











          • Thank you for your explanation. I like the answer. So, +1. But I was seeking a bit more rigorous proof.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48










          • Thanks, but in what way is it not rigorous, in your view?
            – 4-ier
            Aug 24 at 5:53










          • As I said that, I indeed like your answer. Moreover, you have given a very good geometrical view. So, I have to merge both of your proofs. If I had the possibility to accept both, then I would have done that. I hope you understand me. I sincerely appreciate your answer and efforts.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:59










          • Ok. I just interpreted 'not rigorous enough' as derogatory, because the proof is rigorous.
            – 4-ier
            Aug 25 at 3:39






          • 1




            I apologize if I sounded that way. So, I take back my words because I didn't mean that way.
            – user550103
            Aug 25 at 6:49
















          • Thank you for your explanation. I like the answer. So, +1. But I was seeking a bit more rigorous proof.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:48










          • Thanks, but in what way is it not rigorous, in your view?
            – 4-ier
            Aug 24 at 5:53










          • As I said that, I indeed like your answer. Moreover, you have given a very good geometrical view. So, I have to merge both of your proofs. If I had the possibility to accept both, then I would have done that. I hope you understand me. I sincerely appreciate your answer and efforts.
            – user550103
            Aug 24 at 5:59










          • Ok. I just interpreted 'not rigorous enough' as derogatory, because the proof is rigorous.
            – 4-ier
            Aug 25 at 3:39






          • 1




            I apologize if I sounded that way. So, I take back my words because I didn't mean that way.
            – user550103
            Aug 25 at 6:49















          Thank you for your explanation. I like the answer. So, +1. But I was seeking a bit more rigorous proof.
          – user550103
          Aug 24 at 5:48




          Thank you for your explanation. I like the answer. So, +1. But I was seeking a bit more rigorous proof.
          – user550103
          Aug 24 at 5:48












          Thanks, but in what way is it not rigorous, in your view?
          – 4-ier
          Aug 24 at 5:53




          Thanks, but in what way is it not rigorous, in your view?
          – 4-ier
          Aug 24 at 5:53












          As I said that, I indeed like your answer. Moreover, you have given a very good geometrical view. So, I have to merge both of your proofs. If I had the possibility to accept both, then I would have done that. I hope you understand me. I sincerely appreciate your answer and efforts.
          – user550103
          Aug 24 at 5:59




          As I said that, I indeed like your answer. Moreover, you have given a very good geometrical view. So, I have to merge both of your proofs. If I had the possibility to accept both, then I would have done that. I hope you understand me. I sincerely appreciate your answer and efforts.
          – user550103
          Aug 24 at 5:59












          Ok. I just interpreted 'not rigorous enough' as derogatory, because the proof is rigorous.
          – 4-ier
          Aug 25 at 3:39




          Ok. I just interpreted 'not rigorous enough' as derogatory, because the proof is rigorous.
          – 4-ier
          Aug 25 at 3:39




          1




          1




          I apologize if I sounded that way. So, I take back my words because I didn't mean that way.
          – user550103
          Aug 25 at 6:49




          I apologize if I sounded that way. So, I take back my words because I didn't mean that way.
          – user550103
          Aug 25 at 6:49

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2891956%2fis-rm-rank-a-1-2-b-a-1-2-1-if-a-is-symmetric-positiv%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

          Carbon dioxide