- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Some determinantal inequalities for accretive-dissipative matrices
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2013, Article number: 512 (2013)
Abstract
This article aims to obtain some determinantal inequalities for accretive-dissipative matrices which are generalizations of the determinantal inequalities presented by Lin (Linear Algebra Appl. 438:2808-2812, 2013). At the same time, we give some numerical examples which show the effectiveness of our results.
1 Introduction
Let be the space of complex matrices of size matrices. is said to be accretive-dissipative, if, in its Toeplitz decomposition
both matrices B and C are Hermitian positive definite. For simplicity, let A, B, C be partitioned as
such that the diagonal blocks and are of order k and l (, and ), respectively, and let .
If is partitioned as
where is a nonsingular submatrix, then the matrix is called the Schur complement of the submatrix in A.
If is positive definite and partitioned as in (1.2), then the inequalities [[1], Lemma 6] hold:
If is positive definite and partitioned as in (1.2), then the famous Fischer-type determinantal inequality is proved [[2], p.478]:
If is an accretive-dissipative matrix and partitioned as in (1.2), Ikramov [3] first proved the determinantal inequality for A:
Lin [[1], Theorem 8] got a stronger result than (1.5) as follows:
If is an accretive-dissipative matrix, then
The purpose of this paper is to give some generalizations of (1.3) and (1.6). Our main results can be stated as follows.
Theorem 1 Let be positive definite and x, y be positive real numbers. Then
When , the inequality is a special case of Theorem 1. Thus (1.5) is a generalization of the inequality [[1], Lemma 6].
Theorem 2 Let be accretive-dissipative and partitioned as in (1.2), and let x, y be positive real numbers. Then
When , we get the inequality [[1], (3.1)], which is a special case of Theorem 2.
Theorem 3 Let be accretive-dissipative and partitioned as in (1.2), and let x, y be positive real numbers. Then
When , we get the inequality [[1], (3.2)]
which is a special case of (1.7).
2 Proofs of main results
To achieve the proofs of Theorem 1, Theorem 2 and Theorem 3, we need the following lemmas.
Lemma 4 [[4], Property 6]
Let be accretive-dissipative and partitioned as in (1.2). Then , the Schur complement of in A, is also accretive-dissipative.
Lemma 5 [[3], Lemma 1]
Let be accretive-dissipative and partitioned as in (1.2). Then with and .
Lemma 6 [[3], Lemma 4]
Let be Hermitian and assume that . Then
Remark 1 A stronger inequality than (2.4) was given in Lin [[5], Lemma 2.2]: Let and any Hermitian B. Then .
Proof of Theorem 1 Let , , be the eigenvalues of , where means the unique positive definite square root of B. Then we have
The first inequality follows from [[6], Theorem 2.2], while the second one we prove is as follows:
The proof is completed. □
Proof of Theorem 2
The proof is completed. □
Proof of Theorem 3 By Lemma 4, we obtain
Furthermore, by Lemma 5, we have
where and are positive definite.
By a simple computation, we obtain
By Lemma 4, it is easy to know that R, S are positive definite and we have
By the inequalities
it can be proved that
Thus
By Lemma 6 and the operator reverse monotonicity of the inverse, we get
As B, C are positive definite, we also have
Without loss of generality, assume . Then we have
By noting
the proof is completed. □
3 Numerical examples
There are many upper bounds for the determinant of the accretive-dissipative matrices which are due to (1.6), (1.8) and (1.9). However, these bounds are incomparable.
In this section, we give some numerical examples to show that (1.8) and (1.9) are better than (1.6) in some cases.
Example 3.1 Let
We calculate that .
By the upper bound of in (1.6), we have
where , .
Let , . From the upper bound of in (1.8), we have
where , , , .
Meanwhile, by the upper bound of in (1.9), we get
Example 3.2 Let
We calculate that .
By the upper bound of in (1.6), we have
where , .
Let , . Then, by the upper bound of in (1.8), we have
where , , , .
Meanwhile, by the upper bound of in (1.9), we get
From the two examples above, we can obtain that (1.8) and (1.9) are better than (1.6) in some cases.
References
Lin M: Fisher type determinantal inequalities for accretive-dissipative matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 2013, 438: 2808–2812. 10.1016/j.laa.2012.11.016
Horn RA, Johnson CR: Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, London; 1985.
Ikramov KD: Determinantal inequalities for accretive-dissipative matrices. J. Math. Sci. (N.Y.) 2004, 121: 2458–2464.
George A, Ikramov KD: On the properties of accretive-dissipative matrices. Math. Notes 2005, 77: 767–776. 10.1007/s11006-005-0077-0
Lin M: Notes on an Anderson-Taylor type inequality. Electron. J. Linear Algebra 2013, 26: 63–70.
Zhan X: Singular values of differences of positive semidefinite matrices. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 2000, 22: 819–823.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, J. Some determinantal inequalities for accretive-dissipative matrices. J Inequal Appl 2013, 512 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2013-512
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2013-512