last day (14 days later) » 

2:38 PM
Hi@Semiclassical
 
I'll start writing here now and you can let me know when you're back whether it makes sense :P
 
sure
 
mmkay. so don't worry about responding until then, i'll just write
 
First, I'll generalize the problem a bit by taking $A_{jk}=\int_{\mathbb{R}} x^{j+k}\,d\mu$ where $\int_{\mathbb{R}}d\mu=1$
(formally, $\mu$ is a probability measure and $d\mu/dx$ is the probability density function. but this is basically just notation so that I don't have to worry about which particular inner product I'm doing.)
Since I can consider this as $A_{jk}=\langle x^j,x^k\rangle$ where $\langle f(x),g(x)\rangle =\int_\mathbb{R} f(x) g(x)\,d\mu$, I can do Gram-Schmidt on this inner product to get a family of orthogonal polynomials $\{P_k(x)\}_{k=0,1,2,\cdots}$ where $\text{deg }P_k=k$ and $\langle P_j(x),P_k(x)\rangle =\delta_{jk}$ i.e. orthonormal
(actually, I didn't need to require $\int_{\mathbb{R}}d\mu=1$; all I should have said was that $\mu(x)$ be non-decreasing on its support and that $\int_\mathbb{R}f(x)d\mu$ be finite for any polynomial $f(x)$ )
As an aside, the case at hand corresponds to $d\mu = \chi_{(0,1)}\,dx$ i.e. uniform support on $[0,1]$. This corresponds to the shifted Legendre polynomials; by contrast, the case $d\mu = \chi_{(-1,1)}\,dx$ corresponds to regular Legendre polynomials.
Anyways. Once we have the family of OP's, we can formally expand any monomial $x^j$ in this family as $x^j = \sum_n C_{jn} P_n(x)$. Using the orthonormality of the inner product, we further have $\langle x^j,P_k\rangle = \sum_n C_{jn} \langle P_n , P_k\rangle = C_{jk}$
Hence computing the matrix $C_{jk}$ amounts to computing inner products of the monomials with the OPs.
The reason this is a smart idea is because now one can use this to express the original matrix $A$:
$$A_{jk}=\langle x^j,x^k \rangle = \sum_{mn}C_{jm}C_{kn}\langle P_m,P_n\rangle = \sum_{mn}C_{jm}C_{kn}\delta_{mn} = \sum_{n} C_{jn}C_{kn}.$$
If I regard $C$ as a matrix with elements $C_{jk}$, though, I can interpret this as matrix multiplication. Hence $A=CC^T$.
Additionally, one should be able to write any monomial $x^j$ using only polynomials of degree $k\leq j$. Hence $C_{jn}=\langle x^j,P_n = 0$ if $n>j$, so that $C$ is a lower-triangular matrix.
Hence $A$ can be explicitly written as an $LU$-factorization with $U=L^T$.
If we further require that the orthogonal polynomials be monic i.e. $P_k(x)=x^k+\cdots$ then we have $C_{kk}=\langle P_k,x^k \rangle =1$
Hence $C$ can be written as $C=I+M$ where $M$ is strictly lower-triangular
The only task now is to find $C^{-1}=(I+M)^{-1}$; if we can do this, then it's easy to see that $A^{-1}=(C^{-1})^T C^{-1}$.
And we'll be done.
Sooooo yeah.
For this last task, I suspect the Woodbury matrix identity may be handy?
The main computational task is to find $C_{jk}$ in a nice way.
Actually, it looks like I can't do all these assumptions at once. If $P_n(x)$ is an orthonormal sequence, then I can't require it be monic as well.
So probably best to ignore everything past the LU-factorization statement.
 
3:36 PM
In fact, I should probably not even require that the polynomials be orthonormal; orthogonal is just fine.
In that case, I'll get $A=LDL^T$ where $L$ is lower-triangular and $D$ is diagonal.
That's just as easy/hard to invert as the other form.
(The main reason this is handy is that the standard Legendre polynomials are orthogonal but not orthonormal. So no point making that assumption.)
I'll see if I can clean up the details, though.
 
4:27 PM
oh @Semiclassical
still it seems like some paper!
 
Well, I'm mostly doing this from memory. But I've seen stuff on OPRL (orthogonal polynomials on the real line) and I'm pulling it from there.
it's fairly classical stuff, as I understand it @baymax
 
oh,I will try to understand it
like if i remeber I asked that if entries
of the matrix are of the form of inner product then the determinant is $>0$
@Semiclassical
 
yeah.
 
4:42 PM
ok,I will try to understand
 
these kinds of hankel determinants get studied a lot as I understand it.
 
but still why probability comes here!
 
eh, that's a bit of a false lead.
that was me demanding that the inner product was normalized so that $\langle 1,1\rangle =1$.
 
ok
 
But there's no need to assume that in general.
For instance, when you do Legendre polynomials you typically have $\langle f,g\rangle = \int_{-1}^1 f(x)g(x)\,dx$
and that's got $\langle 1,1\rangle = 2$.
More generally, those are typically normalized in such a way that $\langle P_m,P_n\rangle = \frac{2}{2n+1}\delta_{mn}$.
 
4:46 PM
Yeah
 
In which case the discussion I gave is slightly wrong, and leads to $A=LDL^T$ instead of $A=LL^T$.
 
I remember it when i asked in main about the type of ODE
Why
 
basically, if it was normalized to $\delta_{mn}$, then $D$ is the identity matrix.
 
$A = LL^t$
cholesky
 
So the case of $A=LL^T$ that I gave above was under the condition that $D=I$
Yeah.
I mean, one can still get a Cholesky decomposition from that
 
4:48 PM
ok
 
namely, write $D=S^2$ where $S$ is symmetric and diagonal.
i suppose I'm assuming $D$ has positive entries, though.
 
ok
 
Oh, but that's obvious. The entries of $D$ should be $\langle P_m,P_m\rangle =\int_\mathbb{R} P_m(x)^2\,du$ which is positive so long as $\mu'(x)>0$.
In that case one has $LDL^T = LS^2 L^T = (LS)(S^T L^T) = (LS)(LS)^T$.
So that's a Cholesky decomposition.
 
nice
 
So one can take or leave that without trouble.
 
4:52 PM
ok
so how that leads us to determinant >0
:)]
 
Good question :/
 
oh
AA^t
 
It shouldn't be hard, though.
Oh, huh.
Given what I just said, one has $|A|=|LDL^T|=|L|\cdot |D|\cdot |L^T|$.
 
Det($LDL^T$)
YEAH
 
But $|L^T|=|L|$, so that's $|A|=|L|^2 |D|$.
And I just got done arguing that the elements of $D$ should all be strictly positive.
 
4:54 PM
so determiant is positive
 
So $|D|>0$.
 
done
 
So long as $|L|\neq 0$, yeah.
 
but why $A = LDL^T$
 
Yeah, I should spell that out.
Hmm.
Alternatively, if you accept the original version I gave where $A=CC^T$
then you've got $|A|=|C|^2$ immediately.
So $A$ can have determinant zero iff $C$ does as well.
 
4:56 PM
Like from inner product thingy how are we getting this into matrix and its transpose thingy?
 
Well, I argued that in my block of text earlier.
I'm hardly convinced this is the nicest proof, though :/
Or the best explained, heh.
 
ohk that seems to be a rigor one :)
 
I'll see if I can clean it up a bit.
 
I will try to understand that
 
Note as well, though, that the argument I gave didn't assume that the inner product was $\int_0^1 f(x)g(x)\,dx$.
So this method of proof should work quite generically for Hankel matrices that are generated in this manner.
 
4:58 PM
nice
 
I guess a reference for this could be this paper: web.math.rochester.edu/misc/ojac/vol4/hankel.pdf
Which includes, among other things, a description of how Hankel matrices are factorized.
it all gets pretty weird, though
 
yeah
 
5:21 PM
ok will loook into it,till then see ya
 
later
 

last day (14 days later) »