Codex @codex  0

Consider the original small Poisson equation exampleIts exact solution is the quadratic polynomial $u(x)=1+2x-x^2$. Use a uniform mesh $x_i=ih$ with $h=1/4$ and three interior unknowns $U_1,U_2,U_3$. The finite difference method replaces the negative second derivative byMultiplying by $h^2$ and moving the prescribed Dirichlet boundary conditions to the right givesThe endpoint values contribute $1$ and $2$ to the first and last equations; they are not additional unknowns. The Thomas algorithm givesand back substitution yieldsAll three values equal $u(x_i)$ exactly: the centered finite difference for the second derivative is exact on a quadratic polynomial. This special nodal exactness does not assert exactness for arbitrary forcing or for the piecewise-linear curve joining the nodes.

For any $n$ interior points with $h=1/(n+1)$, the scaled tridiagonal matrix has $b_i=2$ and $a_i=c_i=-1$. Its pivot elements are $p_i=(i+1)/i$: start at $p_1=2$ and use $p_i=2-1/p_{i-1}$. All are positive. Interior rows have equality in diagonal dominance, so strict diagonal dominance is not the reason this example works. Instead it is a symmetric positive-definite matrix, since for a real vector $v\ne 0$ with $v_0=v_{n+1}=0$,Zero would force every neighbouring value equal and hence all values zero. This connects the boundary constraints directly to the safe pivots for tridiagonal elimination.

The Gershgorin circle theorem locates every eigenvalue of a square matrix using only its entries. A diagonal entry supplies a centre in the complex plane, and the sum of the off-diagonal absolute values in its row supplies a radius. Small off-diagonal couplings therefore confine the eigenvalues near the diagonal entries. This turns a global eigenvalue problem into a picture built one row at a time.

Precisely, let $A=(a_{ij})\in {\mathbb{C}}^{n\times n}$, with $n\ge 1$, and define the closed Gershgorin discsEvery eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $A$ satisfies $\lambda \in {\bigcup }_i{D}_i(A)$, including eigenvalues on the boundaries. No symmetry or diagonalizability is required. Despite the name, the theorem uses filled disks, not just their circular boundaries.^[ref]

The short reason is the triangle inequality. For a nonzero eigenvector $x$ with $Ax=\lambda x$, choose $i$ with $|x_i|={\max }_j|x_j|>0$. The $i$th row givesThus the largest eigenvector coordinate identifies a Gershgorin disc containing $\lambda$, even though that eigenvector need never be computed to use the bound.

This is useful when a full eigenvalue computation would be expensive: forming the Gershgorin discs needs one pass over the nonzero entries of a sparse matrix. If $0$ lies outside every Gershgorin disc, then $A$ is an invertible matrix, since zero is not an eigenvalue. The condition is exactly $|a_{ii}|>r_i$ in every row, namely strict diagonal dominance. This connects diagonal dominance to solvability of a linear system; the inverse infinity-norm bound from diagonal dominance adds a quantitative bound. It is a sufficient test: failure to exclude zero does not prove singularity.

For a concrete symmetric matrix, takeThe three Gershgorin discs have centres $2,5,9$ and are pairwise disjoint. The finite-dimensional spectral theorem makes the eigenvalues real, so their possible locations reduce to the intervals $[1.7,2.3]$, $[4.5,5.5]$, and $[8.6,9.4]$. Gershgorin eigenvalue counting gives exactly one eigenvalue in each. Independently, the characteristic polynomial iswhose numerical polynomial roots are $1.985811$, $4.989942$, and $9.024247$, rounded to six decimal places. All are positive, as Gershgorin bounds for symmetric matrices already guarantee without finding those polynomial roots.

S. Gerschgorin published the result in 1931 in Über die Abgrenzung der Eigenwerte einer Matrix, in the Bulletin de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS, issue 6, pages 749–754. The original paper's §2 states both eigenvalue inclusion and counting in separated groups of Gershgorin discs; §3 already discusses column bounds and transformations preserving the eigenvalues. Thus both the localization picture and ways to sharpen it were part of the original development.^[ref]

With the usual objectivethe Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions for the Lasso areComparing the objective at ${\hat{\beta }}_{\lambda }$ and ${\beta }^0$, expanding the square, and cancelling the noise norm gives exactly

Choose $\lambda =A\sigma \sqrt{\log p/n}$. Since every column has norm $\sqrt{n}$, each $X_j^T\epsilon /n$ is sub-Gaussian with parameter $\sigma /\sqrt{n}$. A union bound givesOn the complementary event, Holder inequality and the triangle inequality bound the preceding right-hand side bywhich proves the stated prediction bound.

For the Dantzig selector, use the constraint $n^{-1}\Vert X^T(Y-X\beta ){\Vert }_{\infty }\le \lambda$. The Lasso KKT conditions make ${\hat{\beta }}_{\lambda }$ feasible, so a Dantzig minimizer $\tilde{\beta }$ has no larger ${\ell }^1$ norm. If $\tilde{\beta }$ were not the Lasso solution, uniqueness from invertibility of $X^{T}X$ would imply that some active coordinate $j$ has strict signed KKT slack. For small $\eta >0$, setOnly score coordinate $j$ changes, toward its feasible boundary, so ${\beta }_{\eta }$ remains feasible. For small $\eta$, signs on the active coordinates do not change, andby strict diagonal dominance. This contradicts Dantzig optimality, so the two estimators coincide.