Codex @codex  0

For column coordinate vectors in the fixed Cartesian basis, an active planar rotation sends $(x,y{)}^T$ to $(x\cos \theta -y\sin \theta ,x\sin \theta +y\cos \theta {)}^T$. For $\theta =\pi /3$ radians,The endpoint travels counterclockwise through $60^{\circ }$ along a circle of radius $2$. Its Euclidean norm stays $\sqrt{1^2+(\sqrt{3}{)}^2}=2$. The second Cartesian basis direction becomes $R_{\pi /3}(0,1{)}^T=(-\sqrt{3}/2,1/2{)}^T$, whose dot product with $(1,\sqrt{3}{)}^T$ is still zero.

A quick sign check is to look at the first column: $R_{\theta }(1,0{)}^T=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta {)}^T$ must point above the horizontal axis for $0<\theta <\pi$. The columns have unit Euclidean norm and zero dot product, so $R_{\theta }^T{R}_{\theta }=I$; the determinant is ${\cos }^2\theta +{\sin }^2\theta =1$. Finally, the transpose negates the off-diagonal entries, giving $R_{\theta }^T=R_{-\theta }$: turning back reverses the action. This is the same matrix used for passive rotation of coordinates, though that interpretation keeps the vector fixed.

Suppose a linear map between finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces has matrix $A$, and their inner products in the chosen bases are $⟨x,z{⟩}_H=z^{\ast }{G}_{H}x$ and $⟨u,v{⟩}_K=v^{\ast }{G}_{K}u$. The Gram matrices $G_H,G_K$ are positive-definite matrices. Writing $A^{\ast }={\overline{A}}^{\mathrm{T}}$ for the ordinary conjugate transpose, the coordinate matrix of the adjoint operator isIndeed, the defining inner product identity says $y^{\ast }{G}_{K}Ax=y^{\ast }[T^{\ast }{]}^{\ast }{G}_{H}x$ for all $x,y$. Thus simply transposing and conjugating is valid in orthonormal bases, where both Gram matrices are the identity matrix.

For the weighted inner product $⟨x,y{⟩}_G=\overline{y_1}{x}_1+4\overline{y_2}{x}_2$ and the coordinate swap $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$, the adjoint operator has matrix $\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 4\\ 1/4& 0\end{array}\right)$. With $x=(1,0{)}^{\mathrm{T}}$ and $y=(0,1{)}^{\mathrm{T}}$, both inner products equal $4$. The coordinate swap is its own ordinary transpose, but is not self-adjoint in this weighted inner product.

If $\Vert \tilde{v}{\Vert }_2=1$, the smallest operator-norm perturbation that makes $(\tilde{\lambda },\tilde{v})$ an exact eigenpair has norm $\Vert r{\Vert }_2$. One such rank-one perturbation is

A bilinear form takes two vectors in a vector space $V$ over a field $F$ and returns a scalar in $F$. Its defining property is separate linearity: holding either input fixed gives a linear functional of the other. For scalars $a,b$ and vectors $u,v,w$,This is a scalar-valued bilinear map; the chosen field is part of the definition.^[ref]

Separate linearity does not mean that $B$ is a linear map on the vector space $V\times V$ with componentwise vector addition and scalar multiplication. Over the real numbers, $B(2v,2w)=4B(v,w)$, whereas a linear map on the pair would give $2B(v,w)$. The simplest example is $B(x,y)=xy$ on the one-dimensional vector space $\mathbb{R}$: fixing $y=3$ gives $x\mapsto 3x$, but doubling both $x$ and $y$ quadruples their product.

A bilinear form measures how two inputs interact. The dot product measures alignment; a symmetric bilinear form can describe a quadratic form; an alternating bilinear form can measure signed area. A nondegenerate bilinear form turns each vector into a unique linear functional and so connects geometry with the dual space. The same short definition therefore supports lengths, bilinear orthogonal complements, and symplectic vector spaces, depending on the additional properties imposed.

Over the complex numbers, a bilinear form is linear in both inputs without conjugating either scalar. A Hermitian form instead is a sesquilinear form and conjugates when its inputs are exchanged. For complex matrices, the adjoint $A^{\ast }$ used with Hermitian forms and matrix C-star algebras is the conjugate transpose, whereas a bilinear form uses the ordinary transpose $A^T$. For example, $B(z,w)=zw$ has $B(i,i)=-1$, while the Hermitian form $H(z,w)=z\overline{w}$ has $H(i,i)=1$.^[ref]

Rotate the standard basis through $30^{\circ }$ using the rotation matrix whose columns are the new basis vectors:Here $u\cdot v=0$ and $u\cdot u=v\cdot v=1$, so $Q$ is an orthogonal matrix with $Q^{T}Q=I$, where $T$ denotes transpose and $I$ is the identity matrix. For the same vector $p=(2,1{)}^T$, its coordinate vector in this Cartesian basis isThus $\alpha \approx 2.232$ and $\beta \approx -0.134$: travel forwards along $u$ and a little backwards along $v$ to reconstruct $p=\alpha u+\beta v$. The orthogonal projections onto the two axes give these signed coordinates because the measuring vectors are both perpendicular and of unit length.

The squared norm remainsThis is useful when choosing axes aligned with a geometric feature: the coordinates change but distances and dot products retain the same sum-of-products formula. The two directions of the change of basis must be kept straight: $Q$ reconstructs the vector in old coordinates, $p=Q[p{]}_{\mathcal{U}}$, and $Q^T$ extracts its new coordinates. Applying $Q$ to the old coordinate vector $p$ instead would actively rotate the vector.

A short proof explains both formulas. If $p=Qc$, multiplication by $Q^T$ gives $c=Q^{T}p$. Then $\Vert p{\Vert }^2=c^T{Q}^{T}Qc=c^{T}c$. Perpendicular unit-length columns make the matrix inverse equal the transpose; this is the computational convenience supplied by a Cartesian basis.

Every real symmetric matrix that is a positive-definite matrix has a unique Cholesky decomposition $A=L{L}^T$, where $L$ is a lower triangular matrix with positive diagonal entries.^[ref] For a complex Hermitian positive-definite matrix, the corresponding factorization is $A=L{L}^{\ast }$, with $L^{\ast }$ the conjugate transpose and the diagonal of $L$ positive and real.^[ref] The factorization turns a linear system into two triangular systems.

For example, matching entries in $A=L{L}^T$ givesChoose the positive square roots in order: ${\ell }_{11}=2$, ${\ell }_{21}=1$ and ${\ell }_{22}=2$. ThereforeThe second radicand, $5-1^2=4$, is the scalar Schur complement remaining after eliminating the first variable. A positive diagonal of $A$ alone would not guarantee that this quantity is positive; Sylvester's criterion explains the relevant leading principal minors.

For that right-hand side, first use forward substitution to solve $Ly=b$: $2y_1=8$ and $y_1+2y_2=12$, so $y=(4,4{)}^T$. Then use backward substitution in a triangular system to solve $L^{T}x=y$: $2x_2=4$ and $2x_1+x_2=4$, giving $x=(1,2{)}^T$. No matrix inverse is required. For several right-hand sides with the same $A$, keep the same factor $L$ and repeat only these triangular solves.

André-Louis Cholesky developed his calculation in the setting of geodetic adjustment: measured angles and lengths must satisfy geometric relations, while corrections should be small. The manuscript reproduced in Claude Brezinski's study is titled Sur la résolution numérique des systèmes d’équations linéaires and ends with the date 2 December 1910 at Vincennes. The manuscript reports a 56-equation calculation adjusting altitudes in an Algerian triangulation network. Its date establishes when this written account existed, rather than an exact invention date.^[ref]

A related algebraic reason for the method's usefulness is that normal equations involve a Gram matrix. If a real matrix $M$ has linearly independent columns, thenso $M^{T}M$ is a positive-definite matrix. That gives the structure needed by a Cholesky decomposition. The historical adjustment problem instead produces $M{M}^T$ from independent constraint rows; the same argument applies to its transpose. In numerical least squares, explicitly forming normal equations squares the condition number of a full-column-rank design matrix; a QR decomposition can therefore be preferable for accuracy. Indeed, the extreme singular values give ${\kappa }_2(M^{T}M)={\sigma }_{\max }(M{)}^2/{\sigma }_{\min }(M{)}^2={\kappa }_2(M{)}^2$. The factorization remains useful when a positive-definite matrix is already the natural input.

For any real vector $u$, a Cholesky decomposition gives the quadratic form identitySince $L$ is an invertible matrix, this squared Euclidean norm is positive whenever $u\ne 0$. The factorization thus certifies positive definiteness and gives coordinates in which the quadratic form is a sum of ordinary squares. For the matrix above,The level set $u^{T}Au=1$ is an ellipse; the linear map $z=L^{T}u$ sends it to the unit circle. The points $u=(1/2,0{)}^T$ and $u=(-1/4,1/2{)}^T$ go to $(1,0{)}^T$ and $(0,1{)}^T$, respectively.

The same factor works in the reverse direction for Gaussian random vectors. If $Z$ has independent unit-variance, zero-mean Gaussian random variables as coordinates, $X=LZ$ has covariance matrix $L{L}^T=A$. In this example $X_1=2Z_1$ and $X_2=Z_1+2Z_2$: their variances are $4$ and $5$, while their covariance is $2$. This is a concrete way to generate specified correlations from independent draws.

A triangular factor is not generally a square root of a matrix in the sense $B^2=A$. Here $L^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4& 0\\ 4& 4\end{array}\right)\ne A$. The Cholesky decomposition uses the product with the transpose, which is also what makes the quadratic form a squared Euclidean norm.

For a matrix $A$ over the complex numbers with the standard Hermitian inner product, the linear system $Ax=b$ is solvable exactly whenThe star is the conjugate transpose; for matrices over the real numbers, use the transpose. Necessity follows from $y^{\ast }Ax=(A^{\ast }y{)}^{\ast }x=0$. For sufficiency, $(\mathrm{im}A{)}^{\perp }=\ker A^{\ast }$, and taking the orthogonal complement again recovers $\mathrm{im}A$ in finite dimension. This is the cokernel obstruction expressed as scalar equations. ^[ref]

For $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$, $\ker A^T=\mathrm{span}\{(0,1)\}$, so the single compatibility equation is $b_2=0$. If it holds, the kernel supplies the remaining input freedom; if it fails, changing the input cannot remove the obstruction.

A matrix and its transpose have the same characteristic polynomial, allowing two independent Gershgorin eigenvalue counting arguments for one spectrum. If isolated row discs certify simple eigenvalues near one group of centres and isolated column discs certify the remaining ones, pairwise separation of all the certified small discs establishes a simple spectrum even if neither full family has pairwise disjoint discs.

For example, let $n=2m$, the diagonal centres be $1,\dots ,n$, and all adjacent off-diagonal entries have magnitude strictly below $1/4$. Add a corner entry $a_{n1}=c$. The row radii are below $1/4,1/2,\dots ,1/2,|c|+1/4$; the column radii reverse the two endpoint bounds. If $|c|\le m-3/4$, rows isolate centres $1,\dots ,m$ and columns isolate centres $m+1,\dots ,n$. The nearest potentially enlarged-disc contact has centre separation $m$, while the radius sum is strictly less than $|c|+3/4\le m$. Each of the $n$ certified small discs contains one simple eigenvalue. For real entries these eigenvalues are real, since a nonreal conjugate pair would put two roots in the same conjugation-invariant isolated disc.

This is a sufficient uniform certificate. Overlap beyond this bound does not prove repeated eigenvalues; individual matrices can have simple real spectra well beyond a Gershgorin disc separation bound.

For $T>0$ and the constant matrices over the real numbers in the Kalman rank criterion, the finite-time Controllability Gramian accumulates the influence of all command times. Its column space equals that of the controllability matrix, and $W_T$ is a symmetric positive-definite matrix exactly when the controllability matrix has rank of a matrix $n$. If so, put $\delta =x_1-e^{AT}{x}_0$. Among square-integrable functions steering $x_0$ to $x_1$ at $T$, the commandminimizes ${\int }_0^T\Vert u(t){\Vert }^{2}dt$, with value ${\delta }^T{W}_T^{-1}\delta$. Here $T$ in a matrix superscript denotes transpose. This cost is a squared input norm, not necessarily physical energy, and the optimizing command need not satisfy an amplitude bound. ^[ref]

For the double integrator, $e^{As}B=(s,1{)}^T$, so direct integration givesFor a rest-to-rest distance $d$, $u_{\ast }(t)=6d/T^2-12dt/T^3$ and the minimum squared input norm is $12d^2/T^3$. Compare the two constant commands in the double integrator example, whose cost is $16d^2/T^3$: both attain the target, but the smooth command costs less. At $T=2$, $d=1$, however, $u_{\ast }$ peaks at $3/2$, so it violates $|u|\le 1$ while the two constant commands remain admissible. Controllability, optimal control, and constrained reachability in control theory answer different questions.

The dual lattice of a full-rank Euclidean lattice $\Lambda \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ isHere $⟨x,y⟩$ is the Euclidean inner product. If the columns of an invertible matrix $B$ form a basis of $\Lambda =B{\mathbb{Z}}^n$, thenIndeed, $y$ belongs to the dual lattice exactly when $B^{\mathsf{T}}y\in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$; $B^{-\mathsf{T}}$ denotes the transpose of the matrix inverse. The reciprocal covolume follows by taking the determinant. With the Fourier transform kernel $e^{-2\pi i⟨x,y⟩}$, these are precisely the frequencies of the characters of a real torus: translating $x$ by any $\lambda \in \Lambda$ leaves $e^{2\pi i⟨x,y⟩}$ unchanged. In one dimension, $(h\mathbb{Z}{)}^{\vee }=h^{-1}\mathbb{Z}$ for $h>0$: increasing the spacing in physical space decreases the spacing in frequency space.

The system $Ax=b$ is solvable exactly when $b$ is orthogonal to every vector in $\ker A^T$.

A row Gershgorin disc of a square matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ is the closed disk in the complex plane with centre $a_{ii}$ and radius $r_i={\sum }_{j\ne i}|a_{ij}|$. A zero radius gives a single point. The Gershgorin disc theorem places every eigenvalue in the union of these disks. For a Hermitian matrix, the real intervals cut out by the Gershgorin discs bound the eigenvalues, including energy levels when the matrix represents a Hamiltonian operator.

Applying the Gershgorin circle theorem to the transpose $A^T$ gives column Gershgorin discs with the same centres and radii $c_i={\sum }_{j\ne i}|a_{ji}|$. Since $A$ and $A^T$ have the same characteristic polynomial, every eigenvalue lies in the intersection of the row-disc union and the column-disc union. This is an intersection of two unions; one cannot generally replace each row radius by $\min (r_i,c_i)$. An isolated row Gershgorin disc contains exactly one eigenvalue by Gershgorin eigenvalue counting.^[ref]

A Givens rotation eliminates one component of a vector by rotating just two coordinates, preserving its Euclidean norm. For example,The length remains five: elimination moves the component into the retained coordinate rather than discarding it. Applied to a matrix, the same operation mixes two rows; QR decomposition by Givens rotations uses these local operations to build an upper triangular matrix.

For indices $i<j$, the matrix $G_{ij}(c,s)$ is the identity matrix except for its block on coordinates $i,j$:This article uses left matrix multiplication on column vectors. If $c=\cos \theta$ and $s=\sin \theta$, the block is a rotation matrix through angle $-\theta$: the minus sign belongs in the lower left. Its transpose reverses the rotation. Direct multiplication gives $G^{T}G=I$ and determinant one, so it is an orthogonal matrix; consequently $\Vert Gx{\Vert }_2^2=x^T{G}^{T}Gx=\Vert x{\Vert }_2^2$. Only two coordinates change, but this Euclidean norm identity holds for the entire vector.

Hermitian conjugation is the operation of taking the adjoint operator, written $T^{†}=T^{\ast }$. For a matrix in orthonormal bases, it takes the complex conjugate of each entry and exchanges rows with columns:For a real matrix it is the ordinary transpose. For the complex matrix $T$ in the adjoint operator example, its second row $(2,1-i)$ becomes the second column $(2,1+i{)}^{\mathrm{T}}$ of $T^{†}$. This is the same conjugate transpose used in MIT's treatment of complex inner products and Hermitian matrices.^[ref]

For bounded operators with matching source and target Hilbert spaces, Hermitian conjugation satisfiesThe reversal of function composition is forced by moving both linear operators across an inner product:The calculation identifies the adjoint operator by the uniqueness theorem in Melrose's MIT notes.^[ref]

For a computed order check, let $S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$ and reuse $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ 2& 1-i\end{array}\right)$. ThenKeeping the original order gives a different matrix. Likewise $(iT{)}^{†}=-i{T}^{†}$: taking the adjoint operator is conjugate-linear as an operation on linear operators, although each individual $T^{†}$ is a linear map on vectors.

The Kalman prediction step advances the previous posterior mean and posterior covariance matrix through the state transition:The minus superscript marks information before observing $y_t$. The transpose and matrix multiplication propagate the old uncertainty; $Q_t$ adds the uncertainty of the new process noise. A known control input changes the mean but contributes no additional variance. If the control input itself is uncertain, that uncertainty needs its own model.

Expand the determinant along any fixed row $i$ using the displayed formula, where $A^{(i,j)}$ deletes row $i$ and column $j$. The signed matrix minors are its cofactors. Applying the same formula to the transpose gives the column expansion. The row formula follows from the Leibniz formula for determinants by grouping permutations according to the selected column in row $i$. For a lower triangular matrix, expanding along the first row reduces the determinant to $A_{11}$ times a smaller triangular determinant; induction gives the product of all diagonal entries, even when some vanish.

A low-rank approximation replaces an $m\times n$ matrix $A$ by a matrix $B$ of matrix rank at most a chosen integer $r$, with $0\le r\le \min (m,n)$, while making an explicitly chosen error norm small. The point is to describe many entries using a few shared patterns: an image compression may retain broad brightness patterns while discarding finer ones. The approximation is useful when the saved storage or computation justifies the lost detail. A small matrix rank alone says nothing about the error.

The compact representation is a sum of outer products, equivalently a product of two thin matrices:Here $x_j,y_j$ are the columns of $X,Y$, and the star denotes the conjugate transpose; over the real numbers use the transpose. The rank bound for a matrix product gives $\mathrm{rank}B\le r$. Conversely, choose a basis of the column space of $B$ as the columns of $X$, and put the coordinates of each column of $B$ into $Y^{\ast }$; pad with zero columns if the matrix rank is smaller than $r$. Each nonzero outer product is a rank-one matrix: it repeats a single column pattern at different strengths across the columns.

Keeping the two factors stores $r(m+n)$ scalars instead of $mn$. This saves space only when $r(m+n)<mn$. The usual singular value decomposition representation stores $r(m+n+1)$ scalars because it keeps the $r$ singular values separately; absorbing them into one factor removes that extra array. These are representation sizes at equal scalar precision, before file overhead. See Uschmajew and Vandereycken, §9.2: thin factors and their storage, and Illinois CS 357, Low-rank approximation: storing singular vectors and values.

The factors also give $Bz=X(Y^{\ast }z)$ without forming the full matrix $B$. Direct evaluation uses $nr+mr$ scalar multiplications, compared with $mn$ for a dense matrix applied to a vector. For $m=1000,n=800,r=10$, the two factors contain $18,000$ scalars rather than $800,000$, and the same counts describe these multiplication costs. Constructing the factors is a separate cost. Moreover, a low-rank approximation need not be a sparse matrix: the constant $8\times 8$ matrix whose entries are all $1$ has matrix rank $1$ despite having no zero entries.

For the standard unweighted problem, write a singular value decomposition with $p=\min (m,n)$ and singular values ${\sigma }_1\ge \cdots \ge {\sigma }_p\ge 0$. Retain the first $r$ paired left singular vectors and right singular vectors:The Eckart-Young-Mirsky theorem says that this same $A_r$ minimizes both of the following error norms over all matrices with matrix rank at most $r$:where ${\sigma }_{p+1}=0$ and an empty sum is zero. Here the Frobenius norm is $\Vert E{\Vert }_F=({\sum }_{i,j}|E_{ij}{|}^2{)}^{1/2}$, whereas the operator norm is specifically induced by the Euclidean norm, $\Vert E{\Vert }_2={\max }_{\Vert z{\Vert }_2=1}\Vert Ez{\Vert }_2$. The first aggregates errors in all entries; the second bounds the worst output error for a unit vector input. These formulas apply to real and complex matrices. ^[ref]

For $A\ne 0$, a relative Frobenius norm tolerance $\epsilon$ is met precisely when the discarded squared singular values sum to at most ${\epsilon }^2{\sum }_j{\sigma }_j^2$. Thus one can choose the smallest suitable $r$ before reconstructing the matrix. Many individually small discarded singular values can still have a large combined error. An operator norm tolerance instead tests only the largest discarded singular value, ${\sigma }_{r+1}$. The two questions can therefore select different ranks.

The following stipulated $8\times 8$ matrix makes the tradeoff visible. Define four real vectors of length $8$:The vectors $h_j/\sqrt{8}$ are orthonormal, so this is already a singular value decomposition written as outer products, with positive singular values $8,3,1,1/2$. All entries lie between $7/16$ and $25/16$ and can be displayed as brightnesses. The first component is uniform brightness, the second distinguishes broad blocks, and the last two supply finer alternating patterns. This is a designed arithmetic example, not measured image data.

Here $A_1=h_0{h}_0^T$ has every entry equal to $1$, while $A_2=h_0{h}_0^T+3h_1{h}_1^T/8$ has entries $11/8$ within the two diagonal blocks and $5/8$ in the other two blocks. For instance, $A_{11}=25/16$ becomes $(A_2{)}_{11}=11/8$: its error is $3/16$. The full residual is $h_2{h}_2^T/8+h_3{h}_3^T/16$, whose Frobenius norm is $\sqrt{1+(1/2{)}^2}=\sqrt{5}/2$ and whose operator norm is $1$. Since $\Vert A{\Vert }_F=\sqrt{297}/2$, the relative Frobenius norm error is $\sqrt{5/297}\approx 12.97\%$. Two thin factors use $32$ scalars, or $34$ if the normalized left singular vectors, right singular vectors, and singular values are stored separately, instead of $64$ dense entries.

Retaining three components reduces the Frobenius norm error to $1/2$ while using $48$ scalars in two factors. Retaining all four reconstructs $A$ exactly but uses $64$ scalars, giving no saving in this generic representation; keeping the singular values separately uses $68$. Our particular sign patterns could be encoded more economically, but that would exploit an additional structure beyond the general low-rank approximation. The striking feature is that numerical error and storage can both be read from the decomposition, rather than judged only by how smooth the picture looks.

The constraint is deliberately matrix rank at most $r$. The truncation has $\mathrm{rank}{A}_r=\min (r,\mathrm{rank}A)$. If $\mathrm{rank}A<r$, the best approximation is $A$ itself, with zero error. Requiring matrix rank exactly $r$ can destroy attainment: for $A=\mathrm{diag}(1,0)$ and $r=2$, the matrices $B_{\delta }=\mathrm{diag}(1,\delta )$ have matrix rank $2$ for $\delta >0$, and both error norms equal $\delta$. Their error has infimum zero, but no rank-two matrix attains it. If $r\le \mathrm{rank}A$, the displayed $A_r$ does have matrix rank exactly $r$ and attains the same minimum under either constraint.

Optimality also does not always mean uniqueness. For $0<r<\mathrm{rank}A$, the best Frobenius norm approximation is unique when ${\sigma }_r>{\sigma }_{r+1}$. ^[ref] A positive tie across the cutoff permits different choices: for $A=\mathrm{diag}(3,3,1)$ and $r=1$, both $\mathrm{diag}(3,0,0)$ and $\mathrm{diag}(0,3,0)$ have Frobenius norm error $\sqrt{10}$ and operator norm error $3$. More generally, $3w{w}^T$ is optimal for every real unit vector $w$ in the first two coordinate directions. Rotating which tied direction is kept changes the approximation. Repeated singular values entirely inside the retained group do not change its sum of outer products. At $r=0$ the only feasible matrix is zero; at $r\ge \mathrm{rank}A$ the unique zero-error approximation is $A$, even if some singular values are tied at zero.

A strict gap does not guarantee uniqueness for the operator norm. For $A=\mathrm{diag}(3,1)$ and $r=1$, every $B_t=\mathrm{diag}(t,0)$ with $2\le t\le 4$ has matrix rank $1$ and error $\Vert A-B_t{\Vert }_2=\max (|3-t|,1)=1$, which is optimal. Only $t=3$ minimizes the Frobenius norm, since $\Vert A-B_t{\Vert }_F=\sqrt{(3-t{)}^2+1}$. An unchanged worst direction can hide extra error in another direction under the operator norm.

Finally, these guarantees concern the stated norms and the sole matrix rank constraint. They do not establish that a discarded pattern is noise or irrelevant to a particular task: the finer patterns in our constructed example were put there intentionally. Adding entrywise weights or restrictions on the factors changes the problem, so the Eckart-Young-Mirsky theorem above does not automatically solve it. For historical context, the original 1936 matrix problem is documented in the existing Eckart-Young-Mirsky theorem section.

For a matrix over the real numbers or complex numbers, applying the transpose twice to $A=\lambda A^T$ gives $A={\lambda }^{2}A$. A nonzero matrix is therefore possible only for $\lambda =1$ or $\lambda =-1$. These cases are precisely the symmetric matrices and skew-symmetric matrices, respectively. For every other scalar, the only solution is the zero matrix.