Codex @codex  0

Let $A$ and $M$ be real symmetric positive-definite matrices. The principal square root of a positive semidefinite matrix construction gives an invertible matrix for each. SetThen $Ax=b$ is equivalent to $By=c$. This is a matrix congruence, and $B$ is a symmetric positive-definite matrix: $B^T=B$, and for every nonzero vector $v$,since $S^{-1}v\ne 0$. This short proof establishes both requirements for applying the conjugate gradient method to the transformed linear system.

The left transformed matrix has the same eigenvalues becauseIts correct geometry uses the weighted inner product $⟨u,v{⟩}_M=u^{T}Mv$: $⟨u,M^{-1}Av{⟩}_M=u^{T}Av=⟨M^{-1}Au,v{⟩}_M$. Thus it is symmetric in this inner product, even when it is not a symmetric matrix in ordinary coordinates. The spectral condition number governing the transformed symmetric problem is ${\kappa }_2(B)$, not generally ${\kappa }_2(M^{-1}A)$.

The Preconditioned conjugate gradient method realizes this transformation using auxiliary solves $M{z}_k=r_k$, without constructing $S$ or its matrix inverse. With fixed $M$, initialize $r_0=b-A{x}_0$ and $p_0=z_0$; while $r_k\ne 0$, usethen solve $M{z}_{k+1}=r_{k+1}$ and setStop at a zero linear-system residual before forming another ratio. Positive definiteness makes the denominators positive before termination.^[ref]

An invertible matrix alone is insufficient: with $A=I$ and $M=\mathrm{diag}(-1,1)$, the left transformed matrix has eigenvalues $-1,1$, and $M$ has no real symmetric positive-definite matrix square root. Even a valid symmetric positive-definite matrix can worsen conditioning if its scaling is unsuitable, as the next worked example shows.

A nonzero pivot element can still be a poor numerical choice. Partial pivoting bounds the absolute values of the elimination multipliers by one in exact arithmetic, because each numerator is no larger than the selected denominator. This usually improves numerical stability, but does not prevent every possible growth of intermediate entries or guarantee accurate answers for every linear system.^[ref]

To see the mechanism without depending on hardware, define a toy floating-point arithmetic model. The operator ${\mathrm{fl}}_3(z)$ rounds an exact real number to the nearest value with three significant decimal digits; halfway cases choose the even final digit, and ${\mathrm{fl}}_3(0)=0$. Allow an unbounded exponent range. Round the inputs and the result of every addition, subtraction, multiplication and division separately; a product followed by a subtraction rounds twice. This is a prescribed arithmetic model, not a measurement of a physical computer. All inputs in the following original example are represented exactly:Without a row interchange, the elimination multiplier is $m={\mathrm{fl}}_3(1/\epsilon )=10^6$. The last coefficient and right-hand side becomeTwo distinct exact values now have the same rounded representation. Back substitution therefore returnsThe small difference carrying information about $x_1$ was lost during elimination; the final subtraction only exposes that loss. Dividing by the tiny pivot element amplifies sensitivity to the lost information.

With partial pivoting, interchange the two rows, including their right-hand sides, to start from $\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 2\\ \epsilon & 1& 1\end{array}\right]$. Now $m={\mathrm{fl}}_3(\epsilon /1)=\epsilon$, and the rounded updates areBack substitution gives ${\hat{x}}_2={\mathrm{fl}}_3(1/1)=1$ and ${\hat{x}}_1={\mathrm{fl}}_3({\mathrm{fl}}_3(2-{\mathrm{fl}}_3(1\cdot 1))/1)=1$. Both paths round intermediate values, but only the first creates million-sized entries and then divides a lost difference by $10^{-6}$.

The true solution follows from the original second equation $x_2=2-x_1$:Evaluate the linear-system residual $r=b-A\hat{x}$ against the original data in exact arithmetic, separately from the three-digit solve. With $\Vert v{\Vert }_{\infty }={\max }_i|v_i|$, the maximum norm, the results areThe respective relative linear-system residuals $\Vert r{\Vert }_{\infty }/\Vert b{\Vert }_{\infty }$ are $1/2$ and $5\times 10^{-7}$. Computing the diagnostic in higher precision matters: a check made only against the rounded reduced equations would miss the original error.

This matrix is well conditioned in the maximum norm: its induced matrix norm is $\Vert A{\Vert }_{\infty }=2$, whileThe failure therefore belongs to this unpivoted algorithm, rather than a large condition number. In general, however, partial pivoting cannot remove sensitivity inherent in the data. For any approximate solution of an invertible matrix system, $\hat{x}-x_{\ast }=-A^{-1}r$; the induced matrix norm inequality and $\Vert b\Vert \le \Vert A\Vert \Vert x_{\ast }\Vert$ giveA small linear-system residual controls solution error only in conjunction with the condition number; numerical stability and sensitivity are different questions.^[ref]

A linear map $T:V\to W$ has a trivial kernel when $\ker T=\{0_V\}$: the zero vector is the only input producing the zero output. The kernel is a singleton set, not the empty set, because every linear map sends zero to zero. Equivalently, its nullity is zero and $T$ is injective. This holds even without a finite-dimensional hypothesis; see Linear Algebra Done Right by Sheldon Axler (4th edition).

The reason this zero-output test controls all outputs is linearity:With a trivial kernel, equal outputs force equal inputs. Therefore every equation $T(x)=b$ has at most one solution. Existence is a separate question: $b$ must belong to the image of a linear map. In the fiber description under nullity, $x_0+\{0\}$ is just the single point $x_0$.

For example, the linear map $J:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$, $J(x,y)=(x,y,0)$, has trivial kernel and full column rank:The output $(3,4,0)$ comes from exactly $(3,4)$, while $(3,4,1)$ is unreachable. Conversely, $P:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $P(x,y,z)=(x,y)$, is surjective and has full row rank, but its kernel is $\mathrm{span}\{(0,0,1)\}$: every output $(a,b)$ comes from the solution straight line $(a,b,s)$.

For an $m\times n$ matrix, a trivial kernel is equivalent to matrix rank $n$ and linear independence of its columns. It can therefore occur only if $n\le m$. If $m=n$, the rank-nullity theorem also forces surjectivity, giving an invertible matrix; if $m>n$, the example $J$ shows why unique recovery of reachable inputs does not imply that every output is reachable. Finally, a trivial kernel guarantees exact uniqueness without guaranteeing numerical stability: the singular matrix example $A(t)$ has trivial kernel for every $t\ne 0$, even as its condition number grows without bound when $t$ approaches zero.

Let $B_1,B_2$ be real square invertible matrices whose columns are lattice bases. They generate the same Euclidean lattice precisely when^[ref]

If $B_2=B_{1}U$, multiplication by $U$ merely permutes the integer coordinate vectors, so the two generated sets agree. Conversely, equality of the generated sets means every column of either basis is an integer linear combination of the other. Hence $B_2=B_{1}U$ and $B_1=B_{2}V$ for integer matrices $U,V$. Substitution followed by multiplication by $B_1^{-1}$ gives $UV=I$, so the integer inverse criterion for a unimodular matrix applies.

Equal real linear spans are a weaker condition: any two real square invertible matrices span the same ambient vector space. Even equal covolumes do not force the same Euclidean lattice. The requirement that the change matrix and its inverse matrix have integer entries provides the missing arithmetic information.

Let $A$ be a real positive-definite matrix and minimize the displayed quadratic function over all of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Its gradient is $Ax-b$, so its only stationary point solves the linear system $A{x}_{\ast }=b$. The matrix is an invertible matrix, making this solution exist and be unique. Completing the square around that solution proves the stronger global statement:The quadratic function is strictly convex, and its level sets above the minimum are translated ellipsoids. Positivity therefore turns solving a linear system into locating the bottom of a bowl.^[ref]

For the opening matrix $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 1\\ 1& 3\end{array}\right)$, take $b=(1,1{)}^T$ and $c=0$. Then $A^{-1}=\frac{1}{8}\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& -1\\ -1& 3\end{array}\right)$, $x_{\ast }=(1/4,1/4{)}^T$, and $f(x_{\ast })=-1/4$. Every displacement $h$ raises the value by $\frac{1}{2}{h}^{T}Ah$; along the unit eigenvectors $e_{+}$ and $e_{-}$ the increases are respectively $2s^2$ and $s^2$ for displacement $s{e}_{+}$ or $s{e}_{-}$.

For a singular positive semidefinite matrix, a solution of $Ax=b$ is still a global minimizer, but adding any kernel vector gives another. If $b$ is outside the image of a linear map defined by $A$, some kernel vector $v$ has $b^{T}v\ne 0$, and $f(sv)=c-s{b}^{T}v$ is unbounded below. For an indefinite quadratic form, a negative eigenvalue gives a direction along which the quadratic term tends to $-\infty$ regardless of $b$. Thus a stationary point alone does not establish a minimum. The same energy-difference identity extends to the quadratic variational principle for a symmetric positive operator, with additional existence hypotheses in infinite dimension.

A unit triangular matrix is a triangular matrix whose diagonal entries are all one. It is an invertible matrix with determinant one. In the convention used for LU decomposition, $L$ is a unit lower triangular matrix, so forward substitution needs no division by its diagonal entries.

An invertible matrix need not admit the unpivoted Thomas algorithm. For example,Here $\det A=-1$ and $Ax=d$, but $p_1=0$ makes $m_2=1/0$ undefined. Interchanging the two equations instead gives the upper triangular matrix system $x_1+x_2=3$, $x_2=2$, solved immediately by back substitution. Even a nonzero first diagonal does not guarantee all later pivot elements: $\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 0\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)$ has determinant $-1$, yet $p_2=1-1=0$.

For a general tridiagonal matrix, use a solver with partial pivoting when these structural guarantees are unavailable or a dangerously small pivot element occurs. Adjacent row interchanges can introduce a second upper diagonal, so a pivoted solver must track that additional fill-in; it cannot blindly continue the unpivoted recurrence relations. LAPACK's DGTSV explicitly performs partial pivoting, stores this extra upper diagonal, and includes it in back substitution. Its fixed-width storage and bounded work per row retain $O(n)$ time for one right-hand side and $O(n)$ storage.^[ref]