# S.O.S. Mathematics CyberBoard

Your Resource for mathematics help on the web!
 It is currently Mon, 20 May 2013 05:51:46 UTC

 All times are UTC [ DST ]

 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: A simple "non" matrix normPosted: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:12:20 UTC
 S.O.S. Newbie

Joined: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:17:14 UTC
Posts: 3
I recently came upon the need for an unusual norm on the vector space of matrices:

|| M || = max || m_i ||_p

where M is an mxn matrix (real or complex) and the "max" is over all the columns of the matrix, m_0, ... m_n. That is, this norm is the maximal vector p-norm among all the columns of M. This is *not* a true matrix norm, in the usual sense, as it is not submultiplicative, but it *is* a true vector norm.

I have several questions:

1) Has anyone come across this norm before? I've been unable to find anything through various searches.

2) Has it appeared in the literature? (If so, a reference would be much appreciated.)

3) Is there any common terminology for non-submultiplicative norms on matrices? ("pseudo-norm" or "semi-norm" would do nicely, but they are already used for other purposes.)

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:22:24 UTC

Joined: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:14:40 UTC
Posts: 2063
Location: El Paso TX (USA)
People usually ignore the matrix structure and view this as a direct product of the column vectors.

Notation is something like for .

_________________
The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. - Michelangelo Buonarroti

Top

 Post subject: Re: A simple "non" matrix normPosted: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 04:18:20 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6005
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
Jim Arvo wrote:
I recently came upon the need for an unusual norm on the vector space of matrices:

|| M || = max || m_i ||_p

where M is an mxn matrix (real or complex) and the "max" is over all the columns of the matrix, m_0, ... m_n. That is, this norm is the maximal vector p-norm among all the columns of M. This is *not* a true matrix norm, in the usual sense, as it is not submultiplicative, but it *is* a true vector norm.

I have several questions:

1) Has anyone come across this norm before? I've been unable to find anything through various searches.

2) Has it appeared in the literature? (If so, a reference would be much appreciated.)

3) Is there any common terminology for non-submultiplicative norms on matrices? ("pseudo-norm" or "semi-norm" would do nicely, but they are already used for other purposes.)

Well, your norm is the operator norm .

helmut wrote:
People usually ignore the matrix structure and view this as a direct product of the column vectors.

Notation is something like for .

Or .

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 16:18:14 UTC
 S.O.S. Newbie

Joined: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:17:14 UTC
Posts: 3
Hello helmut. Thanks for the quick response. Indeed, what I am doing can be expressed as the direct product of linear spaces with different p-norms (the ones I am most interested in are p=2 and p=infinity), which itself has a "natural" norm; namely, the direct product of the norms. This direct product arises naturally from a problem I am working on which, in turn, suggests the norm I asked about. I'm interested in finding out whether this particular type of norm has surfaced in other applications, and if so, whether its failing to meet the additional axiom usually required of a matrix norm (namely ||AB|| <= ||A|| ||B||) presents any difficulty.

I was also asking about terminology, but I just stumbled upon several references that provided me with the answer to that part: such norms are occasionally called "vector matrix norms", or more commonly "generalized matrix norms". Knowing what they are called is obviously a great help in finding relevant papers, but I have still not located any that address the norm I described.

Top

 Post subject: Operator normsPosted: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:16:04 UTC
 S.O.S. Newbie

Joined: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:17:14 UTC
Posts: 3
Hi Outermeasure. If I'm understanding your notation correctly, you are saying that this norm is the finite-dimensional analog of the operator norm on the space of linear functions from to . (Actually, that should be to , right?) But all operator norms are automatically submultiplicative, just as all induced matrix norms are, right? If so, then the norm I defined is not an operator norm, and that's exactly my concern. Here's another way to see the difference. Let's call my norm . Then

where denotes the ith column of the identity matrix. So my norm is clearly bounded above by the operator norm that you suggested, but the equality cannot hold in general because the latter is submultiplicative and the former is not (except when p=1). Am I missing or misinterpreting something?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Operator normsPosted: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:52:10 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6005
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
Jim Arvo wrote:
Hi Outermeasure. If I'm understanding your notation correctly, you are saying that this norm is the finite-dimensional analog of the operator norm on the space of linear functions from to . (Actually, that should be to , right?) But all operator norms are automatically submultiplicative, just as all induced matrix norms are, right? If so, then the norm I defined is not an operator norm, and that's exactly my concern. Here's another way to see the difference. Let's call my norm . Then

where denotes the ith column of the identity matrix. So my norm is clearly bounded above by the operator norm that you suggested, but the equality cannot hold in general because the latter is submultiplicative and the former is not (except when p=1). Am I missing or misinterpreting something?

No! It is the operator norm for . I'll leave you to prove it is the case.

Also, it is not submulticative, and it makes no sense to multiply because they m and n are not equal (which is why you say M is an mxn matrix). Even if they are equal, you still have the problem of . Of course, if p=1 and m=n, then you do indeed have the usual Banach algebra norm on .

_________________

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]

 All times are UTC [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ High School and College Mathematics    Algebra    Geometry and Trigonometry    Calculus    Matrix Algebra    Differential Equations    Probability and Statistics    Proposed Problems Applications    Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, etc.    Computer Science    Math for Business and Economics Advanced Mathematics    Foundations    Algebra and Number Theory    Analysis and Topology    Applied Mathematics    Other Topics in Advanced Mathematics Other Topics    Administrator Announcements    Comments and Suggestions for S.O.S. Math    Posting Math Formulas with LaTeX    Miscellaneous