Counting free parameters in vector after applying restrictions

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











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I am reading the paper "Detection of Signals by Information Theoretic Criteria" by Wax and Kailath.



In this paper, a vector $Theta$ is defined according to:



$Theta = (lambda_1, ..., lambda_k, sigma^2, V_1^T, ..., V_k^T)$ where $lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of a covariance matrix (which is symmetric so the eigenvalues are real), $V_i$ are complex eigenvectors of length $p$, and $sigma^2$ is a real number.



It is said that there are $k+1+2pk$ parameters in this vector, which makes sense because there are $k$ eigenvalues; $1$ parameter $sigma^2$; and there are $k$ vectors of length $p$ with $2$ parameters in each component (accounting for the real and the imaginary part). So far, so good.



Now I get confused. The authors constrain the eigenvectors to have unit norm and to be mutually orthogonal, and say that the reduction of the degrees of freedom is $2k$ due to normalization and $2 frac12k(k-1)$ due to mutual orthogonalization. I don't understand why.



I would have said that each normalization equation reduces $1$ degree of freedom, so $k$ of them (one for each eigenvector) would reduce $k$ degrees, instead of $2k$. Also, I see that the mutual orthogonalization of $k$ vectors yields $frac12k(k-1)$ equations, and the same argument as before makes me think that this is also the number of degrees reduced due to this condition. You see that in both cases I am missing a factor of $2$ , do you know where does it come from?










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I am reading the paper "Detection of Signals by Information Theoretic Criteria" by Wax and Kailath.



    In this paper, a vector $Theta$ is defined according to:



    $Theta = (lambda_1, ..., lambda_k, sigma^2, V_1^T, ..., V_k^T)$ where $lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of a covariance matrix (which is symmetric so the eigenvalues are real), $V_i$ are complex eigenvectors of length $p$, and $sigma^2$ is a real number.



    It is said that there are $k+1+2pk$ parameters in this vector, which makes sense because there are $k$ eigenvalues; $1$ parameter $sigma^2$; and there are $k$ vectors of length $p$ with $2$ parameters in each component (accounting for the real and the imaginary part). So far, so good.



    Now I get confused. The authors constrain the eigenvectors to have unit norm and to be mutually orthogonal, and say that the reduction of the degrees of freedom is $2k$ due to normalization and $2 frac12k(k-1)$ due to mutual orthogonalization. I don't understand why.



    I would have said that each normalization equation reduces $1$ degree of freedom, so $k$ of them (one for each eigenvector) would reduce $k$ degrees, instead of $2k$. Also, I see that the mutual orthogonalization of $k$ vectors yields $frac12k(k-1)$ equations, and the same argument as before makes me think that this is also the number of degrees reduced due to this condition. You see that in both cases I am missing a factor of $2$ , do you know where does it come from?










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I am reading the paper "Detection of Signals by Information Theoretic Criteria" by Wax and Kailath.



      In this paper, a vector $Theta$ is defined according to:



      $Theta = (lambda_1, ..., lambda_k, sigma^2, V_1^T, ..., V_k^T)$ where $lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of a covariance matrix (which is symmetric so the eigenvalues are real), $V_i$ are complex eigenvectors of length $p$, and $sigma^2$ is a real number.



      It is said that there are $k+1+2pk$ parameters in this vector, which makes sense because there are $k$ eigenvalues; $1$ parameter $sigma^2$; and there are $k$ vectors of length $p$ with $2$ parameters in each component (accounting for the real and the imaginary part). So far, so good.



      Now I get confused. The authors constrain the eigenvectors to have unit norm and to be mutually orthogonal, and say that the reduction of the degrees of freedom is $2k$ due to normalization and $2 frac12k(k-1)$ due to mutual orthogonalization. I don't understand why.



      I would have said that each normalization equation reduces $1$ degree of freedom, so $k$ of them (one for each eigenvector) would reduce $k$ degrees, instead of $2k$. Also, I see that the mutual orthogonalization of $k$ vectors yields $frac12k(k-1)$ equations, and the same argument as before makes me think that this is also the number of degrees reduced due to this condition. You see that in both cases I am missing a factor of $2$ , do you know where does it come from?










      share|cite|improve this question













      I am reading the paper "Detection of Signals by Information Theoretic Criteria" by Wax and Kailath.



      In this paper, a vector $Theta$ is defined according to:



      $Theta = (lambda_1, ..., lambda_k, sigma^2, V_1^T, ..., V_k^T)$ where $lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of a covariance matrix (which is symmetric so the eigenvalues are real), $V_i$ are complex eigenvectors of length $p$, and $sigma^2$ is a real number.



      It is said that there are $k+1+2pk$ parameters in this vector, which makes sense because there are $k$ eigenvalues; $1$ parameter $sigma^2$; and there are $k$ vectors of length $p$ with $2$ parameters in each component (accounting for the real and the imaginary part). So far, so good.



      Now I get confused. The authors constrain the eigenvectors to have unit norm and to be mutually orthogonal, and say that the reduction of the degrees of freedom is $2k$ due to normalization and $2 frac12k(k-1)$ due to mutual orthogonalization. I don't understand why.



      I would have said that each normalization equation reduces $1$ degree of freedom, so $k$ of them (one for each eigenvector) would reduce $k$ degrees, instead of $2k$. Also, I see that the mutual orthogonalization of $k$ vectors yields $frac12k(k-1)$ equations, and the same argument as before makes me think that this is also the number of degrees reduced due to this condition. You see that in both cases I am missing a factor of $2$ , do you know where does it come from?







      combinatorics signal-processing information-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Sep 1 at 3:25









      Javi

      3349




      3349




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          I think by normalization something more is intended. To see this precisely, see that if $v$ is an eigenvector of $A$ then for any $cinmathbb C$, $cv$ is also an eigenvector. Therefore if $v$ is non-zero and unit norm, then one can make an entry of the vector $v$ always to be real by proper normalization and still keeping the unit norm. After this there are only $2(p-1)$ free parameters. So the normalization is not by $|v|_2$ but by $|v|_2e^-ivarphi$ where $re^ivarphi$ is a non-zero entry of $v$.



          For the orthogonal condition, this is much simpler to see. Just consider the following example:

          $$
          (a+ib)(c+id)^*=(ac+bd)+i(bc-ad).
          $$
          If the above product is zero we loose two degrees of freedom one for the real part and another one for the complex part. Therefore each orthogonal condition takes 2 degrees of freedom.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • So let me see if I get the first condition right. You say that $v in mathbbC^p$ has $2p$ parameters but the normalization step involves multiplying by an appropiate factor $e^ivarphi$ to make some entry of $v$ real, losing $1$ degree of freedom, as well as further normalizing by $|v|_2$, losing another degree of freedom. So altogether, I lose $2$ degrees for each vector I normalize. Am I getting your point?
            – Javi
            Sep 1 at 18:56











          • Exactly! that is the point.
            – Arash
            Sep 1 at 19:26










          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%2f2901336%2fcounting-free-parameters-in-vector-after-applying-restrictions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          I think by normalization something more is intended. To see this precisely, see that if $v$ is an eigenvector of $A$ then for any $cinmathbb C$, $cv$ is also an eigenvector. Therefore if $v$ is non-zero and unit norm, then one can make an entry of the vector $v$ always to be real by proper normalization and still keeping the unit norm. After this there are only $2(p-1)$ free parameters. So the normalization is not by $|v|_2$ but by $|v|_2e^-ivarphi$ where $re^ivarphi$ is a non-zero entry of $v$.



          For the orthogonal condition, this is much simpler to see. Just consider the following example:

          $$
          (a+ib)(c+id)^*=(ac+bd)+i(bc-ad).
          $$
          If the above product is zero we loose two degrees of freedom one for the real part and another one for the complex part. Therefore each orthogonal condition takes 2 degrees of freedom.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • So let me see if I get the first condition right. You say that $v in mathbbC^p$ has $2p$ parameters but the normalization step involves multiplying by an appropiate factor $e^ivarphi$ to make some entry of $v$ real, losing $1$ degree of freedom, as well as further normalizing by $|v|_2$, losing another degree of freedom. So altogether, I lose $2$ degrees for each vector I normalize. Am I getting your point?
            – Javi
            Sep 1 at 18:56











          • Exactly! that is the point.
            – Arash
            Sep 1 at 19:26














          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          I think by normalization something more is intended. To see this precisely, see that if $v$ is an eigenvector of $A$ then for any $cinmathbb C$, $cv$ is also an eigenvector. Therefore if $v$ is non-zero and unit norm, then one can make an entry of the vector $v$ always to be real by proper normalization and still keeping the unit norm. After this there are only $2(p-1)$ free parameters. So the normalization is not by $|v|_2$ but by $|v|_2e^-ivarphi$ where $re^ivarphi$ is a non-zero entry of $v$.



          For the orthogonal condition, this is much simpler to see. Just consider the following example:

          $$
          (a+ib)(c+id)^*=(ac+bd)+i(bc-ad).
          $$
          If the above product is zero we loose two degrees of freedom one for the real part and another one for the complex part. Therefore each orthogonal condition takes 2 degrees of freedom.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • So let me see if I get the first condition right. You say that $v in mathbbC^p$ has $2p$ parameters but the normalization step involves multiplying by an appropiate factor $e^ivarphi$ to make some entry of $v$ real, losing $1$ degree of freedom, as well as further normalizing by $|v|_2$, losing another degree of freedom. So altogether, I lose $2$ degrees for each vector I normalize. Am I getting your point?
            – Javi
            Sep 1 at 18:56











          • Exactly! that is the point.
            – Arash
            Sep 1 at 19:26












          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted






          I think by normalization something more is intended. To see this precisely, see that if $v$ is an eigenvector of $A$ then for any $cinmathbb C$, $cv$ is also an eigenvector. Therefore if $v$ is non-zero and unit norm, then one can make an entry of the vector $v$ always to be real by proper normalization and still keeping the unit norm. After this there are only $2(p-1)$ free parameters. So the normalization is not by $|v|_2$ but by $|v|_2e^-ivarphi$ where $re^ivarphi$ is a non-zero entry of $v$.



          For the orthogonal condition, this is much simpler to see. Just consider the following example:

          $$
          (a+ib)(c+id)^*=(ac+bd)+i(bc-ad).
          $$
          If the above product is zero we loose two degrees of freedom one for the real part and another one for the complex part. Therefore each orthogonal condition takes 2 degrees of freedom.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          I think by normalization something more is intended. To see this precisely, see that if $v$ is an eigenvector of $A$ then for any $cinmathbb C$, $cv$ is also an eigenvector. Therefore if $v$ is non-zero and unit norm, then one can make an entry of the vector $v$ always to be real by proper normalization and still keeping the unit norm. After this there are only $2(p-1)$ free parameters. So the normalization is not by $|v|_2$ but by $|v|_2e^-ivarphi$ where $re^ivarphi$ is a non-zero entry of $v$.



          For the orthogonal condition, this is much simpler to see. Just consider the following example:

          $$
          (a+ib)(c+id)^*=(ac+bd)+i(bc-ad).
          $$
          If the above product is zero we loose two degrees of freedom one for the real part and another one for the complex part. Therefore each orthogonal condition takes 2 degrees of freedom.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Sep 1 at 11:23









          Arash

          9,49321537




          9,49321537











          • So let me see if I get the first condition right. You say that $v in mathbbC^p$ has $2p$ parameters but the normalization step involves multiplying by an appropiate factor $e^ivarphi$ to make some entry of $v$ real, losing $1$ degree of freedom, as well as further normalizing by $|v|_2$, losing another degree of freedom. So altogether, I lose $2$ degrees for each vector I normalize. Am I getting your point?
            – Javi
            Sep 1 at 18:56











          • Exactly! that is the point.
            – Arash
            Sep 1 at 19:26
















          • So let me see if I get the first condition right. You say that $v in mathbbC^p$ has $2p$ parameters but the normalization step involves multiplying by an appropiate factor $e^ivarphi$ to make some entry of $v$ real, losing $1$ degree of freedom, as well as further normalizing by $|v|_2$, losing another degree of freedom. So altogether, I lose $2$ degrees for each vector I normalize. Am I getting your point?
            – Javi
            Sep 1 at 18:56











          • Exactly! that is the point.
            – Arash
            Sep 1 at 19:26















          So let me see if I get the first condition right. You say that $v in mathbbC^p$ has $2p$ parameters but the normalization step involves multiplying by an appropiate factor $e^ivarphi$ to make some entry of $v$ real, losing $1$ degree of freedom, as well as further normalizing by $|v|_2$, losing another degree of freedom. So altogether, I lose $2$ degrees for each vector I normalize. Am I getting your point?
          – Javi
          Sep 1 at 18:56





          So let me see if I get the first condition right. You say that $v in mathbbC^p$ has $2p$ parameters but the normalization step involves multiplying by an appropiate factor $e^ivarphi$ to make some entry of $v$ real, losing $1$ degree of freedom, as well as further normalizing by $|v|_2$, losing another degree of freedom. So altogether, I lose $2$ degrees for each vector I normalize. Am I getting your point?
          – Javi
          Sep 1 at 18:56













          Exactly! that is the point.
          – Arash
          Sep 1 at 19:26




          Exactly! that is the point.
          – Arash
          Sep 1 at 19:26

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2901336%2fcounting-free-parameters-in-vector-after-applying-restrictions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Mutual Information Always Non-negative

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