alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

The Lu–Wenzel Conjecture

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

We prove the Lu–Wenzel conjecture for real and complex matrices.

Introduction

For a square complex matrix XX, write X∗X^\ast for its conjugate transpose and ∥X∥F2=Tr⁡(X∗X)\lVert X\rVert_F^2 = \operatorname{Tr}(X^\ast X), where Tr⁡\operatorname{Tr} is the sum of the diagonal entries. The commutator of matrices of the same size is [X,Y]=XY−YX[X,Y] = XY-YX. Submultiplicativity and the triangle inequality give

∥[X,Y]∥F≤2∥X∥F∥Y∥F.\lVert[X,Y]\rVert_F \le2\lVert X\rVert_F\lVert Y\rVert_F.

In 2005, Böttcher and Wenzel asked for the optimal constant and conjectured the sharper inequality

∥[X,Y]∥F2≤2∥X∥F2∥Y∥F2(1)\lVert[X,Y]\rVert_F^2 \le2\lVert X\rVert_F^2\lVert Y\rVert_F^2 \tag*{(1)}

for real square matrices [3]. They proved the two-dimensional case. Vong and Jin established the inequality in every real dimension [14], and Lu obtained an independent proof as part of his work on normal scalar curvature [9]. Böttcher and Wenzel subsequently proved the complex inequality and studied related estimates for unitarily invariant norms [2]. Lu’s eigenvalue proof [10] and the account by Lu and Wenzel [12] explain several connections among these approaches.

A second source of commutator inequalities is submanifold geometry. De Smet, Dillen, Verstraelen and Vrancken proved a curvature inequality in codimension two and proposed its extension to arbitrary codimension in 1999 [5]. This became the normal scalar curvature conjecture. Through the Gauss and Ricci equations, it reduces to the matrix inequality

∑a,b=1m∥[Ba,Bb]∥F2≤(∑a=1m∥Ba∥F2)2(2)\sum_{a,b=1}^{m}\lVert[B_a,B_b]\rVert_F^2 \le\left(\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lVert B_a\rVert_F^2\right)^2 \tag*{(2)}

for every family of real symmetric matrices B1,…,BmB_1,\ldots,B_m of the same size, with m≥1m \ge1. Ge and Tang proved this inequality and classified its equality cases [7]. Lu independently proved the inequality and used it to obtain geometric pinching results [9]. Thus (1) controls one commutator for arbitrary matrices, whereas (2) controls the total commutator energy of a symmetric family.

Lu and Wenzel brought these questions together in their study of the normal Ricci curvature inequality [11]. Their starting point was an estimate arising in a Simons–Bochner formula, in which one symmetric matrix is distinguished from an orthogonal family. For real square matrices X,Y1,…,YmX,Y_1,\ldots,Y_m of the same size, with m≥1m \ge1, they imposed the bilinear conditions

Tr⁡(Ya[X,Yb])=0(1≤a,b≤m).\operatorname{Tr}(Y_a[X,Y_b]) = 0 \qquad(1 \le a,b \le m).

Two matrices A,BA,B are Frobenius-orthogonal when Tr⁡(A∗B)=0\operatorname{Tr}(A^\ast B)=0. For mutually orthogonal X,Y1,…,YmX,Y_1,\ldots,Y_m, their fundamental conjecture predicts

∑a=1m∥[X,Ya]∥F2≤(∑a=1m∥Ya∥F2+max⁡1≤a≤m∥Ya∥F2)∥X∥F2.(3)\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lVert[X,Y_a]\rVert_F^2 \le\left(\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lVert Y_a\rVert_F^2+\max_{1\le a\le m}\lVert Y_a\rVert_F^2\right)\lVert X\rVert_F^2. \tag*{(3)}

This is Conjecture 8 of [11]. Proposition 10 there shows that the fundamental conjecture implies (2) for arbitrary real matrix families satisfying Tr⁡(Ba[Bb,Bc])=0\operatorname{Tr}(B_a[B_b,B_c])=0 for all indices. Symmetric matrices satisfy these constraints because the trace of a product of a symmetric matrix and a skew-symmetric matrix is zero. The constraints therefore preserve the geometric case while allowing nonsymmetric matrices.

Ge, Li, Lu and Zhou [6] reformulated the fundamental conjecture in terms of the spectrum of the commutator operator. For an integer n≥2n \ge2, equip H=Mn(C)\mathcal{H}=M_n(\mathbb{C}) with

⟨A,B⟩=Tr⁡(A∗B),\langle A,B\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}(A^{*}B),

linear in the second variable. The adjoint of a complex linear operator on H\mathcal{H} is also denoted by a star. For X∈HX\in\mathcal{H}, set

DX(Y)=[X,Y],DX∗(Y)=[X∗,Y],TX=DX∗DX.D_X(Y)=[X,Y],\qquad D_X^{*}(Y)=[X^{*},Y],\qquad T_X=D_X^{*}D_X.

Cyclicity of trace gives the adjoint formula, so TXT_X is Hermitian and positive semidefinite. Write λ1(TX)≥⋯≥λn2(TX)≥0\lambda_1(T_X)\ge\cdots\ge\lambda_{n^2}(T_X)\ge0 for its eigenvalues counted with multiplicity. The largest eigenvalue is the maximum of ∥[X,Y]∥F2\lVert[X,Y]\rVert_F^2 over unit YY, so (1) gives λ1(TX)≤2\lambda_1(T_X)\le2 for unit XX.

Ge, Li, Lu and Zhou proved that every positive eigenvalue occurs with even multiplicity. They showed that the fundamental conjecture is equivalent to bounding the first 2k2k eigenvalues by 2k+22k+2, and extended these equivalences to complex matrices [6]. They established the spectral inequalities when XX is normal, when XX has rank one, and when n=2n=2 or 33. In general they obtained

λ1(TX)+λ3(TX)≤4+102,∑j=12kλj(TX)≤2k+1+2k\lambda_1(T_X)+\lambda_3(T_X)\le\frac{4+\sqrt{10}}{2},\qquad\sum_{j=1}^{2k}\lambda_j(T_X)\le2k+1+2\sqrt{k}

for ∥X∥F=1\lVert X\rVert_F=1 and 1≤k≤⌊n2/2⌋1\le k\le\lfloor n^2/2\rfloor. These results and their geometric context are reviewed in [13 Section 4.3]. The spectral conjecture asks for the bound 2k+22k+2 in every dimension. A preprint of Liu computes the spectrum when X2=0X^2=0 and obtains all the predicted partial sums for this class and its scalar translates [8]. Carptopus proves the inequalities on coordered alignment and isoclinic subfamilies of rank-two matrices, together with stability estimates under a positive lower bound on the smaller singular value [4].

Theorem 1. Let n≥2n\ge2, let InI_n be the n×nn\times n identity matrix, and let X∈Mn(C)X\in M_n(\mathbb{C}). For every integer 1≤k≤⌊n2/2⌋1\le k\le\lfloor n^2/2\rfloor,

∑j=12kλj(TX)≤(2k+2)∥X−Tr⁡XnIn∥F2.\sum_{j=1}^{2k}\lambda_j(T_X)\le(2k+2)\left\lVert X-\frac{\operatorname{Tr}X}{n}I_n\right\rVert_F^2.

For each 1≤k≤n−11\le k\le n-1, equality is attained by a nonscalar matrix.

The squared norm on the right is \lVert X\rVert_F^2-\lvert\operatorname{Tr}X\rvert^2/n. Theorem 1 proves the complex version of [6 Conjecture 4], numbered Conjecture 7 in the preprint. For real X$, the complex operator is the complexification of the real one, with the same eigenvalues and multiplicities. When n=1n=1, all commutators vanish.

The proof maximizes the total excess of the eigenvalues above one on the traceless unit sphere. At a maximizer, a strict gap separates the eigenvalues above one from the others. Their sum is smooth in a neighborhood, and its second derivative contains the variation of its spectral projection. Contracting this derivative against commutator directions gives a nonnegative sum of squares. A local maximum principle then permits minimization of the commutator energy within the maximum set. The critical equation, together with membership in the selected spectral subspace, reduces the maximizer to a normal or rank-one matrix.

Normalization and spectral pairs

Subtracting (Tr⁡X)In/n(\operatorname{Tr} X)I_n/n does not change DXD_X. If the resulting matrix is nonzero, dividing it by its Frobenius norm divides TXT_X by the square of that norm. For scalar matrices the theorem is immediate. We therefore work on the sphere

S={X∈H:Tr⁡X=0, ∥X∥F=1},S = \{X \in\mathcal{H} : \operatorname{Tr} X = 0,\ \lVert X\rVert_F = 1\},

with the real metric Re⁡⟨⋅,⋅⟩\operatorname{Re}\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle. Use Id⁡\operatorname{Id} for the identity on H\mathcal{H} and Tr⁡H\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}} for the trace of a complex linear operator on H\mathcal{H}. From now on, norms of matrices are Frobenius norms. For a Hermitian operator AA, A+A_+ is obtained by replacing each eigenvalue of AA by its maximum with zero. Set

G(X)=Tr⁡H(TX−Id⁡)+=∑j=1n2max⁡{λj(TX)−1,0}.G(X) = \operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(T_X-\operatorname{Id})_+ = \sum_{j=1}^{n^2}\max\{\lambda_j(T_X)-1,0\}.

We shall prove G(X)≤2G(X)\le2 on SS. This implies the theorem since each sum of 2k2k eigenvalues minus 2k2k is bounded above by G(X)G(X).

Unitary conjugation preserves the spectrum, since

TUXU∗(UYU∗)=UTX(Y)U∗T_{UXU^*}(UYU^*)=UT_X(Y)U^*

for a unitary n×nn\times n matrix UU, and Y↦UYU∗Y\mapsto UYU^* is an isometry. Let EijE_{ij}, 1≤i,j≤n1\le i,j\le n, denote the matrix unit with a one in position (i,j)(i,j) and zeros elsewhere. The trace identity

Tr⁡HTX=2n∥X∥2−2∣Tr⁡X∣2(4)\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}T_X=2n\lVert X\rVert^2-2\lvert\operatorname{Tr}X\rvert^2 \tag*{(4)}

follows from

∑i,j∥XEij∥2=∑i,j∥EijX∥2=n∥X∥2,\sum_{i,j}\lVert XE_{ij}\rVert^2=\sum_{i,j}\lVert E_{ij}X\rVert^2=n\lVert X\rVert^2,
∑i,j⟨XEij,EijX⟩=Tr⁡((∑i,jEjiX∗Eij)X)=∣Tr⁡X∣2.\sum_{i,j}\langle XE_{ij},E_{ij}X\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\left(\sum_{i,j}E_{ji}X^*E_{ij}\right)X\right)=\lvert\operatorname{Tr}X\rvert^2.

Here ∑i,jEjiX∗Eij=(Tr⁡X∗)In\sum_{i,j}E_{ji}X^*E_{ij}=(\operatorname{Tr}X^*)I_n.

Let J(Y)=Y∗\mathcal{J}(Y)=Y^*, an antiunitary involution of H\mathcal{H}, so it is conjugate linear and ⟨JU,JV⟩=⟨V,U⟩\langle\mathcal{J}U,\mathcal{J}V\rangle=\langle V,U\rangle. When the base matrix XX is fixed or understood as the variable in a local spectral neighborhood, write D=DXD=D_X and T=TXT=T_X. Since ([X,Y∗])∗=−[X∗,Y]([X,Y^*])^*=-[X^*,Y], one has

JDJ=−D∗,K:=JD,K2=−T.(5)\mathcal{J}D\mathcal{J}=-D^*,\qquad K:=\mathcal{J}D,\qquad K^2=-T. \tag*{(5)}

Consequently KK commutes with TT. On the eigenspace EαE_\alpha for a positive eigenvalue α\alpha of TT, one has ⟨Ku,Kv⟩=α⟨v,u⟩\langle Ku,Kv\rangle=\alpha\langle v,u\rangle. Thus K/αK/\sqrt{\alpha} is antiunitary there and squares to −Id⁡-\operatorname{Id}. An orthonormal basis can therefore be chosen in pairs e,fe,f with

Ke=αf,Kf=−αe,De=αf∗,Df=−αe∗.(6)Ke=\sqrt{\alpha}f,\qquad Kf=-\sqrt{\alpha}e,\qquad De=\sqrt{\alpha}f^*,\qquad Df=-\sqrt{\alpha}e^*. \tag*{(6)}

For an antiunitary map QQ with Q2=−Id⁡Q^2=-\operatorname{Id}, antiunitarity gives ⟨Qe,Q2e⟩=⟨Qe,e⟩\langle Qe,Q^2e\rangle=\langle Qe,e\rangle, and Q2e=−eQ^2e=-e makes both sides zero. Thus e⊥Qee\perp Qe. The orthogonal complement of their span is invariant under QQ, so induction produces the pairs in (6) and proves even multiplicity.

Conversely, the spectral inequalities imply G(X)≤2G(X)\le2 on SS. Indeed, the number of eigenvalues above one is even; when it is positive, apply the inequality at this cutoff.

Fix an integer 1≤r<n21\le r<n^2. Suppose there is a strict gap between the rr-th and (r+1)(r+1)-st eigenvalues of TT. Let PP be the orthogonal projection onto the eigenspaces for the rr largest eigenvalues, which are positive. With an orthonormal eigenbasis write

Tqi=αiqi(i∈I),Tqj=βjqj(j∈O),αi>βj≥0.(7)Tq_i=\alpha_iq_i\quad(i\in I),\qquad Tq_j=\beta_jq_j\quad(j\in O),\qquad\alpha_i>\beta_j\ge0. \tag*{(7)}

The sets II and OO partition the n2n^2 basis indices into selected and omitted indices. A sum over all jj means j∈I∪Oj\in I\cup O. Entire repeated eigenspaces are selected. For a complex subspace U⊂HU \subset\mathcal{H}, write U∗={u∗:u∈U}U^* = \{u^* : u \in U\}. Put W=ran⁡PW = \operatorname{ran} P. Then D(W)=W∗D(W) = W^*, and (6) proves the following identity in the complex tensor product H⊗CH\mathcal{H} \otimes_{\mathbb{C}} \mathcal{H}

∑i∈IDqi⊗qi∗(8)\sum_{i\in I} Dq_i \otimes q_i^* \tag*{(8)}

is skew under interchange of its factors.

Indeed each pair contributes α(f∗⊗e∗−e∗⊗f∗)\sqrt{\alpha}(f^* \otimes e^* - e^* \otimes f^*). The tensor is independent of the orthonormal selected basis, since the second factor transforms with the conjugate change of coordinates.

The Hessian of a separated spectral sum

Work on a neighborhood in S\mathbb{S} where the strict cut (7) persists. At each point choose a fixed positively oriented contour Γ\Gamma enclosing the selected eigenvalues and excluding the others, also at nearby points. Diagonalizing TXT_X and integrating the scalar resolvents gives

P(X)=12πi∫Γ(zId⁡−TX)−1 dz.P(X) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\Gamma}(z\operatorname{Id}-T_X)^{-1}\,dz.

The formula gives smoothness even at repeated eigenvalues. Define

F(X)=Tr⁡H(P(X)TX),L=∑i∈IDqi∗Dqi,J=LX−FX,B=DPD∗.F(X)=\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(P(X)T_X),\qquad L=\sum_{i\in I}D_{q_i}^*D_{q_i},\qquad J=LX-FX,\qquad B=DPD^*.

Fix an orthonormal basis e1,…,en2e_1,\ldots,e_{n^2} of H\mathcal{H}. Expanding the selected basis vectors in this basis gives

L=∑a,b=1n2⟨eb,Pea⟩Dea∗Deb.L=\sum_{a,b=1}^{n^2}\langle e_b,Pe_a\rangle D_{e_a}^*D_{e_b}.

Thus LL is independent of the selected frame and smooth as a function of PP. For a tangent vector HH, differentiating P2=PP^2=P shows that P′P' has zero diagonal blocks in ran⁡P⊕ker⁡P\operatorname{ran}P\oplus\ker P. Since TT is block diagonal, Tr⁡H(P′T)=0\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(P'T)=0. The term with PP fixed is the derivative of ∑i∈I∥[X,qi]∥2\sum_{i\in I}\lVert[X,q_i]\rVert^2, so dF(H)=2Re⁡⟨LX,H⟩dF(H)=2\operatorname{Re}\langle LX,H\rangle. The identity ⟨X,LX⟩=∑i∈I∥[qi,X]∥2=F\langle X,LX\rangle=\sum_{i\in I}\lVert[q_i,X]\rVert^2=F gives the radial component of the gradient. Each value of Dqi∗D_{q_i}^* is a commutator and has trace zero, so LXLX is traceless. Therefore the real sphere gradient is

∇SF=2J,⟨X,J⟩=0.(9)\nabla_{\mathbb{S}}F=2J,\qquad\langle X,J\rangle=0. \tag*{(9)}

Define the complex orthogonal projection ΠX\Pi_X, written Π\Pi at a fixed base matrix XX, by

ΠH=H−Tr⁡HnIn−⟨X,H⟩X.\Pi H=H-\frac{\operatorname{Tr}H}{n}I_n-\langle X,H\rangle X.

Its image lies in the real tangent space of S\mathbb{S} and is closed under multiplication by ii. For Y∈ran⁡ΠY\in\operatorname{ran}\Pi, differentiation gives TY′=D∗DY+DY∗DT'_Y=D^*D_Y+D_Y^*D. For i∈I,j∈Oi\in I,j\in O, put

Aji(Y)=⟨[Dqj,qi∗],Y⟩,Cji(Y)=⟨Y,[Dqi,qj∗]⟩.A_{ji}(Y)=\langle[Dq_j,q_i^*],Y\rangle,\qquad C_{ji}(Y)=\langle Y,[Dq_i,q_j^*]\rangle.

Then ⟨qj,Tqi′⟩=Aji(Y)+Cji(Y)\langle q_j,T'_{q_i}\rangle=A_{ji}(Y)+C_{ji}(Y). The adjoint formula and DYq=−DqYD_Yq=-D_qY give these two expressions. The first term is complex linear in YY, the second conjugate linear. The sphere Hessian Hess⁡SF(Y,Y)\operatorname{Hess}_{\mathbb{S}}F(Y,Y) is the second derivative of FF along the sphere geodesic starting with velocity YY. It is

Hess⁡SF(Y,Y)=2⟨Y,(L−FId⁡)Y⟩+2∑i∈I,j∈O∣Aji(Y)+Cji(Y)∣2αi−βj.(10)\operatorname{Hess}_{\mathbb{S}}F(Y,Y)=2\langle Y,(L-F\operatorname{Id})Y\rangle+2\sum_{i\in I,j\in O}\frac{\lvert A_{ji}(Y)+C_{ji}(Y)\rvert^2}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}. \tag*{(10)}

Indeed, differentiating TXP=PTXT_XP=PT_X gives the off-diagonal entry

⟨qj,PY′qi⟩=⟨qj,TY′qi⟩αi−βj.\langle q_j,P'_Yq_i\rangle=\frac{\langle q_j,T'_Yq_i\rangle}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}.

The two off-diagonal blocks give

Tr⁡H(PYTY′)=2∑i∈I,j∈O∣⟨qj,TY′qi⟩∣2αi−βj.\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(P_YT'_Y)=2\sum_{i\in I,j\in O}\frac{\lvert\langle q_j,T'_Yq_i\rangle\rvert^2}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}.

Along the sphere geodesic with initial velocity YY, the acceleration is −∥Y∥2X-\lVert Y\rVert^2X, and T′′=2DY∗DY−2∥Y∥2TT''=2D_Y^*D_Y-2\lVert Y\rVert^2T. Thus Tr⁡H(PT′′)=2⟨Y,LY⟩−2F∥Y∥2\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(PT'')=2\langle Y,LY\rangle-2F\lVert Y\rVert^2. Differentiating F′=Tr⁡H(PT′)F'=\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(PT') proves (10).

The identities Aji(iY)=iAji(Y)A_{ji}(iY)=iA_{ji}(Y) and Cji(iY)=−iCji(Y)C_{ji}(iY)=-iC_{ji}(Y) give

∣Aji(Y)+Cji(Y)∣2+∣Aji(iY)+Cji(iY)∣2=2∣Aji(Y)∣2+2∣Cji(Y)∣2.\lvert A_{ji}(Y)+C_{ji}(Y)\rvert^2+\lvert A_{ji}(iY)+C_{ji}(iY)\rvert^2 =2\lvert A_{ji}(Y)\rvert^2+2\lvert C_{ji}(Y)\rvert^2.

Fix a selected eigenvalue α>0\alpha>0 and an omitted eigenvalue β≥0\beta\geq0, and sum over i,ji,j in their respective eigenspaces Eα,EβE_\alpha,E_\beta. The vectors Dqi/αDq_i/\sqrt{\alpha} form an orthonormal basis of Eα∗E_\alpha^* by (6). For β>0\beta>0, the vectors Dqj/βDq_j/\sqrt{\beta} form one of Eβ∗E_\beta^*. Changing orthonormal basis in these two sums gives

∑i:qi∈Eαj:qj∈Eβ∣Aji(Y)∣2=β∑i:qi∈Eαj:qj∈Eβ∣⟨[qi∗,qj∗],Y⟩∣2,\sum_{\substack{i:q_i\in E_\alpha\\j:q_j\in E_\beta}}\lvert A_{ji}(Y)\rvert^2 =\beta\sum_{\substack{i:q_i\in E_\alpha\\j:q_j\in E_\beta}}\lvert\langle[q_i^*,q_j^*],Y\rangle\rvert^2,
∑i:qi∈Eαj:qj∈Eβ∣Cji(Y)∣2=α∑i:qi∈Eαj:qj∈Eβ∣⟨[qi∗,qj∗],Y⟩∣2.\sum_{\substack{i:q_i\in E_\alpha\\j:q_j\in E_\beta}}\lvert C_{ji}(Y)\rvert^2 =\alpha\sum_{\substack{i:q_i\in E_\alpha\\j:q_j\in E_\beta}}\lvert\langle[q_i^*,q_j^*],Y\rangle\rvert^2.

For β=0\beta=0, Dqj=0Dq_j=0, so the first identity still holds, and the second follows by changing the selected basis alone. The denominator α−β\alpha-\beta is constant in each such sum. For U∈HU\in\mathcal H, let ∣U⟩⟨U∣\lvert U\rangle\langle U\rvert denote the operator H↦U⟨U,H⟩H\mapsto U\langle U,H\rangle. Define the Hermitian operator

L=L−FId⁡+∑i∈I,j∈Oαi+βjαi−βj∣[qi∗,qj∗]⟩⟨[qi∗,qj∗]∣.(11)\mathcal L=L-F\operatorname{Id}+\sum_{\substack{i\in I,j\in O}}\frac{\alpha_i+\beta_j}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}\lvert[q_i^*,q_j^*]\rangle\langle[q_i^*,q_j^*]\rvert. \tag*{(11)}

Then

Hess⁡SF(Y,Y)+Hess⁡SF(iY,iY)4=⟨Y,LY⟩.(12)\frac{\operatorname{Hess}_{\mathcal S}F(Y,Y)+\operatorname{Hess}_{\mathcal S}F(iY,iY)}{4} =\langle Y,\mathcal LY\rangle. \tag*{(12)}

Contraction with the commutator covariance

Let Ai,BiA_i,B_i be two matrix families indexed by a common finite set, with all sums over a,ia,i in that set. Suppose that ∑iBi⊗Ai\sum_i B_i\otimes A_i is skew. Put

I0=∑a,iTr⁡([Ba,Ai∗][Aa,Bi∗]).I_0=\sum_{a,i}\operatorname{Tr}([B_a,A_i^*][A_a,B_i^*]).

Then

2I0=∥∑i[Bi,Ai]∥F2.(13)2I_0=\left\lVert\sum_i[B_i,A_i]\right\rVert_F^2. \tag*{(13)}

Set R=∑iBiAiR=\sum_iB_iA_i. Skewness implies ∑iAiBi=−R\sum_iA_iB_i=-R and ∑i[Bi,Ai]=2R\sum_i[B_i,A_i]=2R. Expand the two commutators in I0I_0 into four terms. The terms with a minus sign are

−∑a,iTr⁡(BaAi∗Bi∗Aa)=−Tr⁡((−R)R∗)=∥R∥2,-\sum_{a,i}\operatorname{Tr}(B_aA_i^*B_i^*A_a)=-\operatorname{Tr}((-R)R^*)=\lVert R\rVert^2,
−∑a,iTr⁡(Ai∗BaAaBi∗)=−Tr⁡((−R∗)R)=∥R∥2.-\sum_{a,i}\operatorname{Tr}(A_i^*B_aA_aB_i^*)=-\operatorname{Tr}((-R^*)R)=\lVert R\rVert^2.

For the two remaining terms, skewness in the aa index and cyclicity give

∑a,iTr⁡(Ai∗BaBi∗Aa)=−∑a,iTr⁡(Ai∗AaBi∗Ba)=−∑a,iTr⁡(BaAi∗AaBi∗).\sum_{a,i}\operatorname{Tr}(A_i^*B_aB_i^*A_a) =-\sum_{a,i}\operatorname{Tr}(A_i^*A_aB_i^*B_a) =-\sum_{a,i}\operatorname{Tr}(B_aA_i^*A_aB_i^*).

They therefore cancel. Thus I0=2∥R∥2=12∥∑i[Bi,Ai]∥2I_0=2\lVert R\rVert^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\lVert\sum_i[B_i,A_i]\right\rVert^2.

Apply (13) with Ai=qi∗A_i=q_i^*, Bi=DqiB_i=Dq_i. Identity (8) supplies skewness, and

∑i∈I[Dqi,qi∗]=LX.(14)\sum_{i\in I}[Dq_i,q_i^*]=LX. \tag*{(14)}

For any three basis indices a,i,ja,i,j, define

uaij=Tr⁡((Dqa)[qi,qj]).u_{aij}=\operatorname{Tr}((Dq_a)[q_i,q_j]).

We restrict a,ia,i to II in the following sums, but the definition also gives ujaiu_{jai} when jj is omitted. Using uaij=Tr⁡([Dqa,qi]qj)u_{aij}=\operatorname{Tr}([Dq_a,q_i]q_j), Parseval over the orthonormal basis qj∗q_j^* gives

∑juaijuiaj‾=Tr⁡([Dqa,qi][qa∗,(Dqi)∗]).\sum_j u_{aij}\overline{u_{iaj}}=\operatorname{Tr}([Dq_a,q_i][q_a^*,(Dq_i)^*]).

Therefore (13), (14), and (9) imply the exact identity

2Re⁡∑a,i∈Ij alluaijuiaj‾=∥LX∥2=F2+∥J∥2.(15)2\operatorname{Re}\sum_{\substack{a,i\in I\\j\ \mathrm{all}}}u_{aij}\overline{u_{iaj}}=\lVert LX\rVert^2=F^2+\lVert J\rVert^2. \tag*{(15)}

Since DD is a derivation and every commutator has trace zero,

0=Tr⁡(D(qa[qi,qj]))=Tr⁡((Dqa)[qi,qj])+Tr⁡(qa[Dqi,qj])+Tr⁡(qa[qi,Dqj]).0=\operatorname{Tr}(D(q_a[q_i,q_j]))=\operatorname{Tr}((Dq_a)[q_i,q_j])+\operatorname{Tr}(q_a[Dq_i,q_j])+\operatorname{Tr}(q_a[q_i,Dq_j]).

The last two terms equal −uiaj-u_{iaj} and ujaiu_{jai}, respectively, by cyclicity. Thus

uaij−uiaj+ujai=0.(16)u_{aij}-u_{iaj}+u_{jai}=0. \tag*{(16)}

On I3I^3, permutation of the indices makes the sums of ∣uaij∣2\lvert u_{aij}\rvert^2, ∣uiaj∣2\lvert u_{iaj}\rvert^2, and ∣ujai∣2\lvert u_{jai}\rvert^2 equal. Summing ∣ujai∣2=∣uiaj−uaij∣2\lvert u_{jai}\rvert^2=\lvert u_{iaj}-u_{aij}\rvert^2 gives

∑a,i,j∈I∣uaij∣2=2Re⁡∑a,i,j∈Iuaijuiaj‾.(17)\sum_{a,i,j\in I}\lvert u_{aij}\rvert^2=2\operatorname{Re}\sum_{a,i,j\in I}u_{aij}\overline{u_{iaj}}. \tag*{(17)}

Introduce

KII=∑i,l∈I∣[qi∗,ql∗]⟩⟨[qi∗,ql∗]∣,RIO=∑i∈I,j∈Oβjαi−βj∣[qi∗,qj∗]⟩⟨[qi∗,qj∗]∣.K_{II}=\sum_{i,l\in I}\lvert[q_i^*,q_l^*]\rangle\langle[q_i^*,q_l^*]\rvert,\qquad R_{IO}=\sum_{\substack{i\in I,j\in O}}\frac{\beta_j}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}\lvert[q_i^*,q_j^*]\rangle\langle[q_i^*,q_j^*]\rvert.

For fixed ii and every H∈HH\in\mathcal{H}, cyclicity and Parseval give

∑j∈I∪O∣⟨[qi∗,qj∗],H⟩∣2=∑j∈I∪O∣⟨qj∗,[qi,H]⟩∣2=∥[qi,H]∥2.\sum_{j\in I\cup O}\lvert\langle[q_i^*,q_j^*],H\rangle\rvert^2=\sum_{j\in I\cup O}\lvert\langle q_j^*,[q_i,H]\rangle\rvert^2=\lVert[q_i,H]\rVert^2.

Summing over i∈Ii\in I proves the operator identity ∑i∈I,j∈I∪O∣[qi∗,qj∗]⟩⟨[qi∗,qj∗]∣=L\sum_{i\in I,j\in I\cup O}\lvert[q_i^*,q_j^*]\rangle\langle[q_i^*,q_j^*]\rvert=L, by equality of Hermitian quadratic forms. Using (αi+βj)/(αi−βj)=1+2βj/(αi−βj)(\alpha_i+\beta_j)/(\alpha_i-\beta_j)=1+2\beta_j/(\alpha_i-\beta_j), we can rewrite (11) as

L=2L−FId⁡−KII+2RIO.(18)L=2\mathcal{L}-F\operatorname{Id}-K_{II}+2R_{IO}. \tag*{(18)}

Use the direct covariance expression B=∑a∈I∣Dqa⟩⟨Dqa∣B=\sum_{a\in I}\lvert Dq_a\rangle\langle Dq_a\rvert. Taking its trace against the terms in (18) gives

Tr⁡H(BL)=∑a,i∈Ij all∣uaij∣2,\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(BL)=\sum_{\substack{a,i\in I\\j\ \mathrm{all}}}\lvert u_{aij}\rvert^2,
Tr⁡H(BKII)=∑a,i,j∈I∣uaij∣2,\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(BK_{II})=\sum_{a,i,j\in I}\lvert u_{aij}\rvert^2,
Tr⁡H(BRIO)=∑a,i∈I,j∈Oβjαi−βj∣uaij∣2.(19)\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(BR_{IO})=\sum_{\substack{a,i\in I,j\in O}}\frac{\beta_j}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}\lvert u_{aij}\rvert^2. \tag*{(19)}

For the first identity, expand ∑a,i∥[qi,Dqa]∥2\sum_{a,i}\lVert[q_i,Dq_a]\rVert^2 in the complete orthonormal starred basis qj∗q_j^*. For the other two use Tr⁡H(∣U⟩⟨U∣∣V⟩⟨V∣)=∣⟨U,V⟩∣2\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(\lvert U\rangle\langle U\rvert\lvert V\rangle\langle V\rvert)=\lvert\langle U,V\rangle\rvert^2 and ⟨[qi∗,qj∗],Dqa⟩=uaij\langle[q_i^*,q_j^*],Dq_a\rangle=u_{aij}. Also Tr⁡HB=F\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}B=F. Thus

Tr⁡H(BL)=∑a,i,j∈I∣uaij∣2+2∑a,i∈I,j∈Oαiαi−βj∣uaij∣2−F2.(20)\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(B\mathcal{L})=\sum_{a,i,j\in I}\lvert u_{aij}\rvert^2+2\sum_{\substack{a,i\in I,j\in O}}\frac{\alpha_i}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}\lvert u_{aij}\rvert^2-F^2. \tag*{(20)}

Subtracting ∥J∥2\lVert J\rVert^2 in (20), substituting (15), and canceling the terms with j∈Ij \in I by (17) gives

Tr⁡H(BL)−∥J∥2=∑a,i∈I,j∈O(2αiαi−βj∣uaij∣2−2Re⁡(uaijuiaj‾))=∑a,i∈I,j∈O(αiαi−βj∣uaij∣2+αaαa−βj∣uiaj∣2−2Re⁡(uaijuiaj‾)).\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(B\mathcal L)-\lVert J\rVert^2 = \sum_{a,i\in I,j\in O}\left(\frac{2\alpha_i}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}|u_{aij}|^2-2\operatorname{Re}(u_{aij}\overline{u_{iaj}})\right) = \sum_{a,i\in I,j\in O}\left(\frac{\alpha_i}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}|u_{aij}|^2+\frac{\alpha_a}{\alpha_a-\beta_j}|u_{iaj}|^2-2\operatorname{Re}(u_{aij}\overline{u_{iaj}})\right).

In the last line we interchanged a,ia,i in one half of the first sum. Define

S=∑a,i∈I,j∈O(∣uaij−uiaj∣2+βjαi−βj∣uaij∣2+βjαa−βj∣uiaj∣2)≥0.(21)\mathcal S=\sum_{a,i\in I,j\in O}\left(|u_{aij}-u_{iaj}|^2+\frac{\beta_j}{\alpha_i-\beta_j}|u_{aij}|^2+\frac{\beta_j}{\alpha_a-\beta_j}|u_{iaj}|^2\right)\geq0. \tag*{(21)}

Expanding each factor α/(α−β)\alpha/(\alpha-\beta) as 1+β/(α−β)1+\beta/(\alpha-\beta) in the preceding expression gives

Tr⁡H(BL)=S+∥J∥2.(22)\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(B\mathcal L)=\mathcal S+\lVert J\rVert^2. \tag*{(22)}

The strict cut and βj≥0\beta_j\geq0 suffice for nonnegativity.

For i∈I,j∈Oi\in I,j\in O,

⟨[qi∗,qj∗],X⟩=−⟨qj∗,Dqi⟩=0,\langle[q_i^*,q_j^*],X\rangle=-\langle q_j^*,Dq_i\rangle=0,

since Dqi∈W∗Dq_i\in W^*. Consequently RIOX=0R_{IO}X=0, KIIX=LXK_{II}X=\mathcal L X, and LX=J\mathcal L X=J. The projection onto the scalar matrices makes no contribution because B(In)=0B(I_n)=0 and L(In)=−FIn\mathcal L(I_n)=-F I_n.

Expanding the projection off XX, with ∥X∥=1\lVert X\rVert=1, gives

Tr⁡H(BΠLΠ)=Tr⁡H(BL)−⟨X,LBX⟩−⟨X,BLX⟩+⟨X,BX⟩⟨X,LX⟩=Tr⁡H(BL)−2Re⁡⟨J,BX⟩,\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(B\Pi\mathcal L\Pi)=\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(B\mathcal L)-\langle X,\mathcal L B X\rangle-\langle X,B\mathcal L X\rangle+\langle X,BX\rangle\langle X,\mathcal L X\rangle =\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(B\mathcal L)-2\operatorname{Re}\langle J,BX\rangle,

since LX=J\mathcal L X=J and ⟨X,J⟩=0\langle X,J\rangle=0. Hence

Tr⁡H(BΠLΠ)=S+∥J∥2−2Re⁡⟨J,BX⟩.(23)\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(B\Pi\mathcal L\Pi)=\mathcal S+\lVert J\rVert^2-2\operatorname{Re}\langle J,BX\rangle. \tag*{(23)}

Using the fixed basis e1,…,en2e_1,\ldots,e_{n^2}, define the real tangent fields Za(X)=ΠXDXP(X)eaZ_a(X)=\Pi_XD_XP(X)e_a, 1≤a≤n21\leq a\leq n^2. Their covariance satisfies ∑a=1n2∣Za⟩⟨Za∣=ΠBΠ\sum_{a=1}^{n^2}|Z_a\rangle\langle Z_a|=\Pi B\Pi. Therefore

∑a=1n2⟨Za,LZa⟩=Tr⁡H(BΠLΠ),4 dF(ΠBX)=8Re⁡⟨J,BX⟩.\sum_{a=1}^{n^2}\langle Z_a,\mathcal L Z_a\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal H}(B\Pi\mathcal L\Pi),\qquad4\,dF(\Pi B X)=8\operatorname{Re}\langle J,BX\rangle.

Together with (12) and (23), these give

∑a=1n2(Hess⁡SF(Za,Za)+Hess⁡SF(iZa,iZa))+4 dF(ΠBX)=4(S+∥J∥2)≥0.(24)\sum_{a=1}^{n^2}\left(\operatorname{Hess}_{\mathcal S}F(Z_a,Z_a)+\operatorname{Hess}_{\mathcal S}F(iZ_a,iZ_a)\right)+4\,dF(\Pi B X)=4(\mathcal S+\lVert J\rVert^2)\geq0. \tag*{(24)}

Set C(X)=[X∗,X]C(X)=[X^*,X] on S\mathcal S, writing CC at the current base matrix. Suppose that XX is a local maximum of FF on S\mathcal S, with F>0F>0. Then J=0J=0 and the real Hessian is nonpositive. Equation (24) forces S=0\mathcal S=0. For every omitted βj>0\beta_j>0, (21) gives uaij=uiaj=0u_{aij}=u_{iaj}=0, and (16) gives ujai=0u_{jai}=0. Let O+O_+ be the orthogonal sum of the omitted eigenspaces for positive eigenvalues. For subspaces U,VU,V, write [U,V][U,V] for the linear span of the commutators [u,v][u,v], u∈U,v∈Vu\in U,v\in V. The vectors (Dqj)∗(Dq_j)^* for omitted βj>0\beta_j>0 span O+O_+, by (5)–(6), and ⟨(Dqj)∗,[qa,qi]⟩=ujai=0\langle(Dq_j)^*,[q_a,q_i]\rangle=u_{jai}=0. Hence

[W,W]⊥O+.(25)[W,W]\perp O_+. \tag*{(25)}

Taking matrix adjoints gives [W∗,W∗]⊥O+∗[W^*,W^*]\perp O_+^*. By (14) and stationarity, FX=∑i∈I[Dqi,qi∗]F X=\sum_{i\in I}[Dq_i,q_i^*] belongs to [W∗,W∗][W^*,W^*], so X⊥O+∗X\perp O_+^*. The output singular-space decomposition is

H=W∗⊕O+∗⊕ker⁡D∗.\mathcal H=W^*\oplus O_+^*\oplus\ker D^*.

The map D∗D^* takes W∗W^* into WW and kills ker⁡D∗\ker D^*. It follows that the Hermitian matrix satisfies

C=D∗X∈W.(26)C = D^*X \in W. \tag*{(26)}

Extremal matrices

Proof of Theorem 1. On a real coordinate neighborhood of SS with a strict spectral gap, list the 2n22n^2 fields Za,iZaZ_a,iZ_a, 1≤a≤n21 \leq a \leq n^2, from (24) as ZsZ_s, 1≤s≤2n21 \leq s \leq2n^2. For smooth tangent fields U,VU,V, the sphere’s Levi–Civita derivative ∇UV\nabla_U V is the real orthogonal projection of the ambient derivative of VV in direction UU onto the tangent space of SS. Define

Y=4ΠBX−∑s=12n2∇ZsZs.Y = 4\Pi_B X-\sum_{s=1}^{2n^2}\nabla_{Z_s}Z_s.

For a real C2C^2 function hh on this neighborhood, set

Ah=∑s=12n2Zs(Zsh)+Yh.\mathcal{A}h=\sum_{s=1}^{2n^2}Z_s(Z_sh)+Yh.

Vector fields act on functions by directional differentiation. Since Hess⁡Sh(Zs,Zs)=Zs(Zsh)−(∇ZsZs)h\operatorname{Hess}_S h(Z_s,Z_s)=Z_s(Z_sh)-(\nabla_{Z_s}Z_s)h, (24) gives

AF=4(S+∥J∥2)≥0.\mathcal{A}F=4(\mathcal{S}+\lVert J\rVert^2)\geq0.

Lemma 5 below applies to A\mathcal{A} in the chosen coordinates.

The function GG is continuous, by continuity of the ordered eigenvalues, and attains its maximum MM on SS. Suppose M>2M>2. Among the matrices at which G=MG=M, choose X0X_0 minimizing E(X)=∥[X∗,X]∥2E(X)=\lVert[X^*,X]\rVert^2. This is possible because the maximum set is compact. Let rr count the eigenvalues strictly above one at X0X_0. Then 0<r<n20<r<n^2, since G(X0)>0G(X_0)>0 and DX0(In)=0D_{X_0}(I_n)=0. Choose a connected real coordinate neighborhood Ω\Omega of X0X_0 on which the gap at rr remains strict and λr(TX)>1\lambda_r(T_X)>1. Take PP and FF for this cutoff. On Ω\Omega,

F−r≤G≤M,F-r\leq G\leq M,

and equality holds throughout this chain at X0X_0. Thus the set where F=M+rF=M+r in the neighborhood lies in the maximum set of GG. At each of its points (26) gives PC=CPC=C, with C=[X∗,X]C=[X^*,X].

Define the smooth real tangent field V0=−ΠDPCV_0=-\Pi_DPC on the whole neighborhood. It is a smooth real linear combination of the fields Za,iZaZ_a,iZ_a. Indeed, if C=∑acaeaC=\sum_a c_ae_a, its coefficients are −Re⁡ca-\operatorname{Re}c_a and −Im⁡ca-\operatorname{Im}c_a, respectively. By Lemma 5, the short integral curve of V0V_0 through X0X_0 stays in the maximum set of FF. On that set PC=CPC=C and ⟨X,DC⟩=⟨D∗X,C⟩=E\langle X,DC\rangle=\langle D^*X,C\rangle=E, so

V0=−DC+EX.V_0=-DC+EX.

For a tangent vector HH, the derivative of CC is [H∗,X]+[X∗,H][H^*,X]+[X^*,H]. Cyclicity gives

Tr⁡(C[H∗,X])=Tr⁡(H∗[X,C]),Tr⁡(C[X∗,H])=Tr⁡([C,X∗]H).\operatorname{Tr}(C[H^*,X])=\operatorname{Tr}(H^*[X,C]),\qquad \operatorname{Tr}(C[X^*,H])=\operatorname{Tr}([C,X^*]H).

Since C=C∗C=C^*, these two scalars are conjugates, and hence

dE(H)=2Tr⁡(C([H∗,X]+[X∗,H]))=4Re⁡⟨DC,H⟩.dE(H)=2\operatorname{Tr}(C([H^*,X]+[X^*,H]))=4\operatorname{Re}\langle DC,H\rangle.

Moreover,

∥DC−EX∥2=∥DC∥2−E2,dE(−DC+EX)=−4(∥DC∥2−E2)=−4∥DC−EX∥2.\lVert DC-EX\rVert^2=\lVert DC\rVert^2-E^2,\qquad dE(-DC+EX)=-4(\lVert DC\rVert^2-E^2)=-4\lVert DC-EX\rVert^2.

If V0(X0)≠0V_0(X_0)\ne0, this derivative is strictly negative at time zero along the propagated curve. For small positive time the curve remains in {G=M}\{G=M\} and decreases EE, contradicting the choice of X0X_0. Thus V0(X0)=0V_0(X_0)=0. In particular, at X0X_0,

DC=EX0,C∈ran⁡P.(27)DC=EX_0,\qquad C\in\operatorname{ran}P. \tag*{(27)}

All matrix-dependent quantities in the two cases below are evaluated at X0X_0. If C=0C=0, then X0X_0 is normal. In a unitary basis in which it is diagonal, write x1,…,xnx_1,\ldots,x_n for its diagonal entries and xx for their column vector. The eigenvalues of TX0T_{X_0} are ∣xi−xj∣2|x_i-x_j|^2 over ordered pairs (i,j)(i,j). Form the simple graph with an edge ijij when ∣xi−xj∣2>1|x_i-x_j|^2>1, and let mm be its edge count. For m=0m=0 we have G(X0)=0G(X_0)=0. For m>0m>0, orient the edges arbitrarily and let AA be the vertex-edge incidence matrix, with entries +1+1, −1-1 at the endpoints of each column and zero elsewhere. Then

G(X0)/2=∥A∗x∥2−m.G(X_0)/2=\lVert A^*x\rVert^2-m.

Write deg⁡i\deg i for the number of edges incident with vertex ii. For the row indexed by an edge e=ije=ij, the diagonal entry of A∗AA^*A is two. The absolute off-diagonal entry is one exactly for edges sharing an endpoint with ee, and, summing over all graph edges ff,

∑f∣(A∗A)ef∣=2+(deg⁡i−1)+(deg⁡j−1)=deg⁡i+deg⁡j≤m+1.\sum_f |(A^*A)_{ef}|=2+(\deg i-1)+(\deg j-1)=\deg i+\deg j\le m+1.

The last bound follows because the two incident edge sets overlap only in ijij. For an eigenvector of A∗AA^*A, evaluating its eigenvalue equation at a coordinate of largest absolute value shows that the absolute eigenvalue is at most the largest absolute row sum. Multiplication by AA and A∗A^* transfers the positive eigenspaces of A∗AA^*A and AA∗AA^* to each other, so their largest eigenvalues coincide. Hence ∥A∗x∥2=⟨x,AA∗x⟩≤(m+1)∥x∥2=m+1\lVert A^*x\rVert^2=\langle x,AA^*x\rangle\le(m+1)\lVert x\rVert^2=m+1, and G(X0)≤2G(X_0)\le2.

Suppose instead that C≠0C\ne0. By (27), TC=ED∗X0=ECTC=ED^*X_0=EC. The eigenvalue EE exceeds one because ran⁡P\operatorname{ran}P at X0X_0 consists of the eigenspaces above one. Diagonalize CC unitarily, with real diagonal entries c1,…,cnc_1,\ldots,c_n. Each nonzero entry (X0)ij(X_0)_{ij} satisfies cj−ci=Ec_j-c_i=E, by the commutator equation in (27). Write s=rank⁡X0s=\operatorname{rank}X_0, and choose a nonzero minor of size ss with row set RR and column set SS. A nonzero term of its determinant matches the rows to the columns along nonzero entries. Summing the corresponding relations gives

sE=∑j∈Scj−∑i∈Rci.sE=\sum_{j\in S}c_j-\sum_{i\in R}c_i.

The coefficient of each cic_i in this difference is 00, 11, or −1-1, and at most 2s2s coefficients are nonzero. Since ∑ici2=E\sum_i c_i^2=E, Cauchy–Schwarz gives s2E2≤2sEs^2E^2\le2sE. Thus sE≤2sE\le2, and E>1E>1 forces s=1s=1.

A traceless rank-one unit matrix is unitarily similar to E12E_{12}. In fact, writing it as uv∗uv^* with ∥u∥=∥v∥=1\lVert u\rVert=\lVert v\rVert=1, the trace condition gives v∗u=0v^*u=0. Completing u,vu,v to an orthonormal basis gives the stated unitary similarity. In the resulting unitary basis X0=E12X_0=E_{12}, and multiplication gives

D(E21)=E11−E22,D((E11−E22)/2)=−2E12,D(E2j)=E1j,D(Ej1)=−Ej2(3≤j≤n).\begin{aligned} D(E_{21})&=E_{11}-E_{22},\qquad D((E_{11}-E_{22})/\sqrt{2})=-\sqrt{2}E_{12},\\ D(E_{2j})&=E_{1j},\qquad D(E_{j1})=-E_{j2}\qquad(3\le j\le n). \end{aligned}

The displayed inputs are orthonormal and their outputs are orthogonal. All remaining matrix units except E11,E22E_{11},E_{22} are killed by DD, and D(E11+E22)=0D(E_{11}+E_{22})=0. The resulting spectrum, in decreasing order, is

(2,2,1,…,1,0,…,0).(28)(2,2,1,\ldots,1,0,\ldots,0). \tag*{(28)}

In particular G(X0)=2G(X_0)=2 in the rank-one case. Both cases contradict M>2M>2. The normalization in § 2 gives the inequality, and (28) gives equality at E12E_{12} for the stated cutoffs. □

Inequalities for matrix families

Let XX be any unit matrix. The number rr of eigenvalues of TXT_X strictly above one is even by (6). If r=0r=0, the positive-part trace is zero. Otherwise Theorem 1, applied with 2k=r2k=r, gives

Tr⁡H(TX−Id⁡)+=∑j=1rλj(TX)−r≤(r+2)∥X−Tr⁡XnIn∥2−r≤2.\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(T_X-\operatorname{Id})_+ = \sum_{j=1}^{r}\lambda_j(T_X)-r \le(r+2)\left\lVert X-\frac{\operatorname{Tr}X}{n}I_n\right\rVert^2-r\le2.

The first eigenvalue is at most two by the pairing and the theorem at k=1k=1. At every cutoff ℓ≥2\ell\ge2, the partial sum is at most ℓ+2\ell+2 by the positive-part bound and at most 2n2n by (4). The bounds 22 at cutoff one and min⁡{ℓ+2,2n}\min\{\ell+2,2n\} thereafter are the partial sums of (28). Append zero eigenvalues at indices beyond n2n^2; the same bounds then apply.

Corollary 2. Let X,Y1,…,Ym∈Mn(C)X,Y_1,\ldots,Y_m\in M_n(\mathbb{C}), where m≥1m\ge1 and Y1,…,YmY_1,\ldots,Y_m are mutually Frobenius-orthogonal. Then

∑a=1m∥[X,Ya]∥2≤(∑a=1m∥Ya∥2+2max⁡1≤a≤m∥Ya∥2)∥X∥2.(29)\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lVert[X,Y_a]\rVert^2\le\left(\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lVert Y_a\rVert^2+2\max_{1\le a\le m}\lVert Y_a\rVert^2\right)\lVert X\rVert^2. \tag*{(29)}

If additionally Tr⁡(Ya[X,Yb])=0\operatorname{Tr}(Y_a[X,Y_b])=0 for all 1≤a,b≤m1\le a,b\le m, then

∑a=1m∥[X,Ya]∥2≤(∑a=1m∥Ya∥2+max⁡1≤a≤m∥Ya∥2)∥X∥2.(30)\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lVert[X,Y_a]\rVert^2\le\left(\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lVert Y_a\rVert^2+\max_{1\le a\le m}\lVert Y_a\rVert^2\right)\lVert X\rVert^2. \tag*{(30)}

Each inequality implies the spectral conjecture when imposed for all XX and all families satisfying its hypotheses.

Proof. If X=0X=0 or all Ya=0Y_a=0, the inequalities hold directly. Otherwise take ∥X∥=1\lVert X\rVert=1 by homogeneity, remove the zero members, and relabel the remaining family as Y1,…,YmY_1,\ldots,Y_m. Set wa=∥Ya∥2w_a=\lVert Y_a\rVert^2 and ea=Ya/wae_a=Y_a/\sqrt{w_a}, with w1≥⋯≥wm>0w_1\ge\cdots\ge w_m>0 after reordering. The operator A=∑awa∣ea⟩⟨ea∣A=\sum_a w_a|e_a\rangle\langle e_a| is positive semidefinite and satisfies A≤w1Id⁡A\le w_1\operatorname{Id}, in the order of Hermitian operators. For positive semidefinite operators R,SR,S, Tr⁡H(RS)=Tr⁡H(S1/2RS1/2)≥0\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(RS)=\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(S^{1/2}RS^{1/2})\ge0. Apply this to AA, w1Id⁡−Aw_1\operatorname{Id}-A, and the spectral positive part below. Since TX≤Id⁡+(TX−Id⁡)+T_X\le\operatorname{Id}+(T_X-\operatorname{Id})_+, we obtain

∑a∥[X,Ya]∥2=Tr⁡H(TXA)≤Tr⁡HA+w1Tr⁡H(TX−Id⁡)+≤∑awa+2w1.\sum_a\lVert[X,Y_a]\rVert^2=\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(T_XA)\le\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}A+w_1\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}}(T_X-\operatorname{Id})_+\le\sum_a w_a+2w_1.

Under the trace conditions, the span of the YaY_a is orthogonal to its image under K=JDXK=JD_X, since ⟨Ku,v⟩=−Tr⁡(u[X,v])\langle Ku,v\rangle=-\operatorname{Tr}(u[X,v]). Let WW be a subspace of this span of dimension d≥1d\ge1. Write PWP_W for its orthogonal projection. Choose an orthonormal basis u1,…,udu_1,\ldots,u_d diagonalizing the compression PWTX∣WP_WT_X|_W, the operator that applies TXT_X and projects back to WW. Let μi≥0\mu_i\ge0 be the corresponding eigenvalues. For each μi>0\mu_i>0, set vi=Kui/μiv_i=Ku_i/\sqrt{\mu_i}. The vectors viv_i are orthonormal because ⟨Kui,Kuj⟩=⟨uj,TXui⟩\langle Ku_i,Ku_j\rangle=\langle u_j,T_Xu_i\rangle. They lie in W⊥W^\perp and satisfy

⟨vi,TXvi⟩=⟨ui,TX2ui⟩μi≥μi,\langle v_i,T_Xv_i\rangle=\frac{\langle u_i,T_X^2u_i\rangle}{\mu_i}\ge\mu_i,

using KTX=TXKKT_X=T_XK and Cauchy–Schwarz. For any orthonormal set of size bb, the sum of its diagonal entries for a positive semidefinite operator is at most the sum of the first bb eigenvalues. Indeed, expanding the set in an eigenbasis gives weights in [0,1][0,1] that sum to bb, and their weighted eigenvalue sum is maximized by filling the largest entries first. Apply this to the uiu_i and the available viv_i, at most 2d2d vectors. The partial sum bound then yields 2∑iμi≤2d+22\sum_i\mu_i\le2d+2.

Use this estimate on the spans of e1,…,eje_1,\ldots,e_j for each 1≤j≤m1\le j\le m. Setting wm+1=0w_{m+1}=0, summation by parts gives

∑a=1mwa⟨ea,TXea⟩=∑j=1m(wj−wj+1)∑a=1j⟨ea,TXea⟩≤∑j=1m(wj−wj+1)(j+1)=∑a=1mwa+w1.\sum_{a=1}^{m}w_a\langle e_a,T_Xe_a\rangle=\sum_{j=1}^{m}(w_j-w_{j+1})\sum_{a=1}^{j}\langle e_a,T_Xe_a\rangle\le\sum_{j=1}^{m}(w_j-w_{j+1})(j+1)=\sum_{a=1}^{m}w_a+w_1.

Rescaling proves (30).

For the converse to (29), use 2k2k orthonormal eigenvectors for the largest eigenvalues. For (30), use one vector from each of the first kk positive spectral pairs in (6), or from every positive pair if there are fewer. Their span is orthogonal to its image under KK, and the sum of the energies is half of the first 2k2k eigenvalue sum. With hh chosen vectors, the bound is h+1≤k+1h+1\leq k+1, and when h=0h=0 all energies vanish. These chosen vectors belong to positive eigenspaces and are orthogonal to XX, since TXX=0T_X X=0. □

Corollary 3. Let m≥1m\geq1. If B1,…,Bm∈Mn(C)B_1,\ldots,B_m\in M_n(\mathbb{C}) satisfy Tr⁡(Ba[Bb,Bc])=0\operatorname{Tr}(B_a[B_b,B_c])=0 for all 1≤a,b,c≤m1\leq a,b,c\leq m, then

∑a,b=1m∥[Ba,Bb]∥2≤(∑a=1m∥Ba∥2)2.\sum_{a,b=1}^{m}\lVert[B_a,B_b]\rVert^2\leq\left(\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lVert B_a\rVert^2\right)^2.

Proof. The all-zero family satisfies the inequality. Otherwise normalize ∑a∥Ba∥2=1\sum_a\lVert B_a\rVert^2=1 and maximize the left side on the compact set of normalized families satisfying the trace conditions. For a unitary m×mm\times m matrix U=(Uab)U=(U_{ab}), replace the family by Ba′=∑bUabBbB'_a=\sum_b U_{ab}B_b. Orthogonality of the columns of UU gives ∑a∥Ba′∥2=∑a∥Ba∥2\sum_a\lVert B'_a\rVert^2=\sum_a\lVert B_a\rVert^2. The commutators transform by

[Ba′,Bb′]=∑c,dUacUbd[Bc,Bd],[B'_a,B'_b]=\sum_{c,d}U_{ac}U_{bd}[B_c,B_d],

so the same orthogonality on both indices preserves the total energy. Every triple trace transforms as a linear combination of the original triple traces, so it remains zero. If Γab=⟨Ba,Bb⟩\Gamma_{ab}=\langle B_a,B_b\rangle is the Gram matrix, then the new one is UΓUTU\Gamma U^{T}, where TT is transpose. The spectral theorem chooses a unitary UU making this diagonal. Thus a maximizing family may be chosen orthogonal. Reorder it so that w1≥w2≥⋯w_1\geq w_2\geq\cdots, where wa=∥Ba∥2w_a=\lVert B_a\rVert^2. If only one matrix is nonzero the energy is zero.

Write QQ for the maximum and S1=∑b≠1∥[B1,Bb]∥2S_1=\sum_{b\neq1}\lVert[B_1,B_b]\rVert^2 for the contribution with first index one. For t>0t>0, multiply B1B_1 by tt and divide the whole family by 1+(t2−1)w1\sqrt{1+(t^2-1)w_1}. The total squared norm becomes

t2w1+∑a=2mwa1+(t2−1)w1=1.\frac{t^2w_1+\sum_{a=2}^{m}w_a}{1+(t^2-1)w_1}=1.

Each triple trace is multiplied by the product of the scalars applied to its three matrices, so the trace constraints are preserved. The energy along this admissible path is

Q+2(t2−1)S1(1+(t2−1)w1)2.\frac{Q+2(t^2-1)S_1}{(1+(t^2-1)w_1)^2}.

Its derivative at t=1t=1 equals 4S1−4Qw14S_1-4Qw_1. Maximality makes it zero, giving S1=Qw1S_1=Qw_1. Applying (30) with X=B1X=B_1 gives S1≤w1(1−w1+w2)≤w1S_1\leq w_1(1-w_1+w_2)\leq w_1. As w1>0w_1>0, this gives Q≤1Q\leq1. □

A rank bound for the bracket on bivectors

Let g=sln(C)\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{C}) be the subspace of traceless matrices with the Frobenius metric. The exterior square Λ2g\Lambda^2\mathfrak{g} is spanned by the bilinear alternating products U∧VU\wedge V, with U∧V=−V∧UU\wedge V=-V\wedge U. Choose a real orthonormal basis F1,…,Fn2−1F_1,\ldots,F_{n^2-1} of the traceless skew-Hermitian matrices, which satisfy Fi∗=−FiF_i^*=-F_i. It is a complex orthonormal basis of g\mathfrak{g}, since every X∈gX\in\mathfrak{g} has the decomposition

X=X−X∗2+iX+X∗2i.X=\frac{X-X^*}{2}+i\frac{X+X^*}{2i}.

into complex multiples of traceless skew-Hermitian matrices. The exterior metric is defined, for U1,U2,V1,V2∈gU_1,U_2,V_1,V_2\in\mathfrak{g}, by

⟨U1∧U2,V1∧V2⟩=⟨U1,V1⟩⟨U2,V2⟩−⟨U1,V2⟩⟨U2,V1⟩.\langle U_1\wedge U_2,V_1\wedge V_2\rangle =\langle U_1,V_1\rangle\langle U_2,V_2\rangle-\langle U_1,V_2\rangle\langle U_2,V_1\rangle.

Thus Fi∧FjF_i \wedge F_j, 1≤i<j≤n2−11 \le i < j \le n^2-1, form an orthonormal basis, and the metric is preserved by a unitary change of basis. Write b:Λ2g→gb:\Lambda^2\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g} for the linear map b(U∧V)=[U,V]b(U\wedge V)=[U,V], and b∗:g→Λ2gb^*:\mathfrak{g}\to\Lambda^2\mathfrak{g} for its adjoint with respect to these metrics. For η=∑1≤i<j≤n2−1HijFi∧Fj\eta=\sum_{1\le i<j\le n^2-1}H_{ij}F_i\wedge F_j, extend its coefficients to a skew-symmetric matrix HH by Hji=−HijH_{ji}=-H_{ij} and Hii=0H_{ii}=0. The rank of HH is independent of the basis, since a change of basis acts by invertible congruence.

Corollary 4. For n≥2n\ge2 and 1≤k≤⌊n2/2⌋1\le k\le\lfloor n^2/2\rfloor, one has

∥bη∥2≤(k+1)∥η∥2if rank H≤2k.\|b\eta\|^2\le(k+1)\|\eta\|^2 \qquad\text{if rank }H\le2k.

These inequalities are equivalent to Theorem 1.

Proof. For 1≤i,j,ℓ≤n2−11\le i,j,\ell\le n^2-1, put

cijℓ=⟨[Fi,Fj],Fℓ⟩=−Tr⁡([Fi,Fj]Fℓ)=−Tr⁡(Fi[Fj,Fℓ]).c_{ij\ell}=\langle[F_i,F_j],F_\ell\rangle=-\operatorname{Tr}([F_i,F_j]F_\ell)=-\operatorname{Tr}(F_i[F_j,F_\ell]).

These numbers are real because the Frobenius inner product of skew-Hermitian matrices is real. The first bracket makes them antisymmetric in i,ji,j, and the last bracket makes them antisymmetric in j,ℓj,\ell; thus they are fully alternating. For X=∑ℓ=1n2−1xℓFℓX=\sum_{\ell=1}^{n^2-1}x_\ell F_\ell, the full skew coefficient matrix CC of b∗Xb^*X, with Cji=−CijC_{ji}=-C_{ij} and Cii=0C_{ii}=0, has entries, for i<ji<j,

Cij=⟨Fi∧Fj,b∗X⟩=⟨[Fi,Fj],X⟩=∑ℓ=1n2−1cijℓxℓ.C_{ij}=\langle F_i\wedge F_j,b^*X\rangle=\langle[F_i,F_j],X\rangle=\sum_{\ell=1}^{n^2-1}c_{ij\ell}x_\ell.

The matrix of DXD_X restricted to g\mathfrak{g} has i,ji,j entry ∑ℓ=1n2−1cℓjixℓ=−Cij\sum_{\ell=1}^{n^2-1}c_{\ell ji}x_\ell=-C_{ij}. Consequently the squared singular values of CC, with one extra zero for the scalar direction, give the spectrum of TXT_X.

The exterior metric gives ∥H∥F2=2∥η∥2\|H\|_F^2=2\|\eta\|^2 and ⟨b∗X,η⟩=Tr⁡(C∗H)/2\langle b^*X,\eta\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}(C^*H)/2. If PP is the orthogonal projection onto the image of HH, then PH=HPH=H, so

∣⟨b∗X,η⟩∣2≤14∥PC∥F2∥H∥F2≤12∥η∥2∑j=12kλj(TX).|\langle b^*X,\eta\rangle|^2\le\frac{1}{4}\|PC\|_F^2\|H\|_F^2\le\frac{1}{2}\|\eta\|^2\sum_{j=1}^{2k}\lambda_j(T_X).

The last step bounds the trace of CC∗CC^* on a subspace of dimension at most 2k2k by the corresponding eigenvalue sum, as in the proof of Corollary 2.

For fixed XX the estimate is attained on some unit η\eta of rank at most 2k2k. To see this when C≠0C\ne0, the conjugate-linear map v↦C‾vv\mapsto\overline{C}v squares to −C∗C-C^*C since CT=−CC^{\mathsf T}=-C, where T\mathsf T is the ordinary transpose. It commutes with C∗CC^*C, because its square is −C∗C-C^*C, and its squared norm at vv is ⟨v,C∗Cv⟩\langle v,C^*Cv\rangle. Thus, on an eigenspace of C∗CC^*C for a positive eigenvalue α\alpha, division by α\sqrt{\alpha} gives an antiunitary map of square −Id⁡-\operatorname{Id}. The construction leading to (6) supplies orthonormal pairs there. If UU is the unitary matrix with columns given by these pairs and an orthonormal kernel basis, UTCUU^{\mathsf T}CU consists of two-by-two skew blocks and zeros. This follows because the i,ji,j entry of UTCUU^{\mathsf T}CU is the conjugate of the ii-th coordinate of CUjC U_j in the columns of UU, with UjU_j the jj-th column. Retain the kk blocks of largest singular values, or all if fewer, and undo the congruence. The resulting skew matrix has squared Frobenius norm ∑j=12kλj(TX)\sum_{j=1}^{2k}\lambda_j(T_X), and its Frobenius inner product with CC equals that same sum. Multiplying this matrix by 2/∑j=12kλj(TX)\sqrt{2/\sum_{j=1}^{2k}\lambda_j(T_X)} makes it the coefficient matrix of a unit bivector η\eta for which

∣⟨b∗X,η⟩∣2=142∑j=12kλj(TX)(∑j=12kλj(TX))2=12∑j=12kλj(TX).|\langle b^*X,\eta\rangle|^2=\frac{1}{4}\frac{2}{\sum_{j=1}^{2k}\lambda_j(T_X)}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{2k}\lambda_j(T_X)\right)^2=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{2k}\lambda_j(T_X).

If C=0C=0, the estimate is identically zero.

Taking the supremum over unit X∈gX\in\mathfrak{g} recovers ∥bη∥2\|b\eta\|^2 on the left by duality. Conversely the inequality for bηb\eta bounds the maximum over rank-constrained unit η\eta by (k+1)∥X∥2(k+1)\|X\|^2. The attainment just proved gives the spectral inequality for traceless XX, and subtracting the scalar part gives Theorem 1.

Appendix A. Local maximum propagation

The following local form of maximum propagation is part of the maximum principle of Bony [1].

Lemma 5. Let dd, N≥1N \ge1 be integers, let Ω⊂Rd\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d} be open, and let Z1,…,ZN,YZ_{1},\ldots,Z_{N},Y be smooth real vector fields on Ω\Omega. Define the differential operator

Ah=∑s=1NZs(Zsh)+YhAh = \sum_{s=1}^{N} Z_{s}(Z_{s}h) + Yh

for real h∈C2(Ω)h \in C^{2}(\Omega). Suppose m∈Rm \in\mathbb{R}, u∈C2(Ω;R)u \in C^{2}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}), u≤mu \le m, and Au≥0Au \ge0 on Ω\Omega. If W=∑s=1NfsZsW = \sum_{s=1}^{N} f_{s}Z_{s} for smooth real functions fsf_{s}, then every sufficiently short integral curve of WW through a point of {u=m}\{u=m\} stays in {u=m}\{u=m\}.

Proof. Let K={u=m}K=\{u=m\}. Suppose an open ball of center cc and radius RR in Ω∖K\Omega\setminus K touches KK at p∈Ωp \in\Omega. Replacing the center and radius by p+t(c−p)p+t(c-p) and tRtR with 0<t<10<t<1 puts the new closed ball inside the original open ball except at pp, by the triangle inequality and its equality case. The normal direction at pp is unchanged. Thus we may assume the closed ball lies in Ω\Omega and meets KK only at pp.

In coordinates write Zs=∑i=1dzsi∂iZ_{s}=\sum_{i=1}^{d}z_{s}^{i}\partial_{i} and Y=∑i=1dyi∂iY=\sum_{i=1}^{d}y^{i}\partial_{i}, with ∂i=∂/∂xi\partial_{i}=\partial/\partial x_{i}. Set

aij=∑s=1Nzsizsj,bi=yi+∑s=1N∑j=1dzsj∂jzsi(1≤i,j≤d).a^{ij}=\sum_{s=1}^{N}z_{s}^{i}z_{s}^{j},\qquad b^{i}=y^{i}+\sum_{s=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{d}z_{s}^{j}\partial_{j}z_{s}^{i}\qquad(1\le i,j\le d).

Expanding Zs2Z_{s}^{2} gives

A=∑i,j=1daij∂i∂j+∑i=1dbi∂i.A=\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}a^{ij}\partial_{i}\partial_{j}+\sum_{i=1}^{d}b^{i}\partial_{i}.

The matrix (aij)(a^{ij}) is positive semidefinite. We show Zs(p)⋅(p−c)=0Z_{s}(p)\cdot(p-c)=0 for every ss. If their squares sum to a positive number, take v(x)=e−κ∣x−c∣2−e−κR2v(x)=e^{-\kappa|x-c|^{2}}-e^{-\kappa R^{2}} for κ>0\kappa>0. Differentiation gives

Av(p)=e−κR2(4κ2∑s(Zs(p)⋅(p−c))2−2κ(∑iaii(p)+∑ibi(p)(pi−ci))).Av(p)=e^{-\kappa R^{2}}\left(4\kappa^{2}\sum_{s}(Z_{s}(p)\cdot(p-c))^{2}-2\kappa\left(\sum_{i}a^{ii}(p)+\sum_{i}b^{i}(p)(p_{i}-c_{i})\right)\right).

Choose κ\kappa large enough that Av(p)>0Av(p)>0, and take a small ball UU centered at pp with U‾⊂Ω\overline{U}\subset\Omega and Av>0Av>0 on U‾\overline{U}. The compact part of ∂U\partial U in the closed exterior ball is disjoint from KK. On it uu is uniformly below mm if this part is nonempty. For sufficiently small ε>0\varepsilon>0, u+εv<mu+\varepsilon v<m there. Elsewhere on ∂U\partial U we have v<0v<0, giving the same strict inequality. Since u(p)+εv(p)=mu(p)+\varepsilon v(p)=m, the function u+εvu+\varepsilon v attains an interior maximum in UU. At that point A(u+εv)≤0A(u+\varepsilon v)\le0 by the vanishing gradient and the nonpositive Hessian, whereas Au+εAv>0Au+\varepsilon Av>0 on UU. The contradiction proves the asserted tangency. In particular W(p)⋅(p−c)=0W(p)\cdot(p-c)=0 for every such exterior ball.

Fix x0∈Kx_{0}\in K, choose ρ>0\rho>0 with B(x0,2ρ)‾⊂Ω\overline{B(x_{0},2\rho)}\subset\Omega, and set K0=K∩B(x0,2ρ)K_{0}=K\cap B(x_{0},2\rho). Let γ\gamma be the integral curve of WW from x0x_{0} on a short interval [0,T][0,T] with image in B(x0,ρ/2)B(x_{0},\rho/2). For each time choose a nearest point p∈K0p\in K_{0} to γ(t)\gamma(t), using compactness. Then ∣γ(t)−p∣≤∣γ(t)−x0∣<ρ/2|\gamma(t)-p|\le|\gamma(t)-x_{0}|<\rho/2, so

∣p−x0∣≤∣p−γ(t)∣+∣γ(t)−x0∣<ρ.|p-x_{0}|\le|p-\gamma(t)|+|\gamma(t)-x_{0}|<\rho.

If γ(t)≠p\gamma(t)\ne p, the ball centered at γ(t)\gamma(t) of radius ∣γ(t)−p∣|\gamma(t)-p| lies in B(x0,ρ)B(x_{0},\rho). Every point of KK in that ball would belong to K0K_{0} and contradict minimality of the distance. Hence the ball avoids all of KK. Thus W(p)⋅(γ(t)−p)=0W(p)\cdot(\gamma(t)-p)=0, also valid when γ(t)=p\gamma(t)=p.

The squared distance f(t)=dist⁡(γ(t),K0)2f(t)=\operatorname{dist}(\gamma(t),K_{0})^{2} is Lipschitz on this interval, since distance to a set is 11-Lipschitz. Let LL be a Lipschitz constant for WW on B(x0,2ρ)‾\overline{B(x_{0},2\rho)}. At any point of differentiability of ff, holding the nearest point pp fixed for positive increments gives

f′(t)≤2(γ(t)−p)⋅W(γ(t))=2(γ(t)−p)⋅(W(γ(t))−W(p))≤2Lf(t).f'(t) \le2(\gamma(t)-p)\cdot W(\gamma(t)) = 2(\gamma(t)-p)\cdot(W(\gamma(t))-W(p)) \le2Lf(t).

Since f(0)=0f(0)=0, the absolutely continuous function e−2Ltf(t)e^{-2Lt}f(t) is nonincreasing and f=0f=0. The same argument with −W-W gives propagation in negative time. □

References

Zhili College, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Email address: [email protected]

References

  1. [1]J.-M. Bony, Principe du maximum, inégalité de Harnack et unicité du problème de Cauchy pour les opérateurs elliptiques dégénérés, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 19 (1969), no. 1, 277–304.DOI
  2. [2]A. Böttcher and D. Wenzel, The Frobenius norm and the commutator, Linear Algebra Appl. 429 (2008), 1864–1885.DOI
  3. [3]A. Böttcher and D. Wenzel, How big can the commutator of two matrices be and how big is it typically?, Linear Algebra Appl. 403 (2005), 216–228.DOI
  4. [4]Cartpopus, Coordinated alignment and isoclinic stability in the rank-two complex Lu–Wenzel problem, preprint, October 18, 2026, author’s repository.
  5. [5]P. J. De Smet, F. Dillen, L. Verstraelen, and L. Vrancken, A pointwise inequality in submanifold theory, Arch. Math. (Brno) 35 (1999), 115–128.
  6. [6]J. Ge, F. Li, Z. Lu, and Y. Zhou, On some conjectures by Lu and Wenzel, Linear Algebra Appl. 592 (2020), 134–164. Preprint arXiv:1908.06624.DOI
  7. [7]J. Ge and Z. Tang, A proof of the DDV conjecture and its equality case, Pacific J. Math. 237 (2008), no. 1, 87–95.arxiv.org/abs/0801.0650
  8. [8]Z. Liu, The Lu–Wenzel spectral conjecture for square-zero matrices, preprint, version 1, Zenodo record 21693383.
  9. [9]Z. Lu, Normal scalar curvature conjecture and its applications, J. Funct. Anal. 261 (2011), no. 5, 1284–1308.DOI
  10. [10]Z. Lu, Remarks on Böttcher–Wenzel inequality, Linear Algebra Appl. 436 (2012), no. 7, 2531–2535.arxiv.org/abs/1106.1827
  11. [11]Z. Lu and D. Wenzel, The normal Ricci curvature inequality, Contemp. Math. 674, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2016, 99–110.DOI
  12. [12]Z. Lu and D. Wenzel, Commutator estimates comprising the Frobenius norm—looking back and forth, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. 259, Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2017, 533–559.DOI
  13. [13]J. Ge, F. Li, Z. Tang, and Y. Zhou, A survey on the DDV-type inequalities, Adv. Math. (China) 53 (2024), no. 3, 449–467.
  14. [14]S.-W. Vong and X.-Q. Jin, Proof of Böttcher and Wenzel's conjecture, Oper. Matrices 2 (2008), no. 3, 435–442.DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_k4wxw2ku
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 3

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents