Some results on the partial orderings of block matrices

Some results relating to the block matrix partial orderings and the submatrix partial orderings are given. Special attention is paid to the star ordering of a sum of two matrices and the minus ordering of matrix product. Several equivalent conditions for the minus ordering are established.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000): 15A45; 15A57

Let C^m×n denote the set of all m × n matrices over the complex field C. The symbols A*, R(A), R^⊥(A), N(A) and r(A) denote the conjugate transpose, the range, orthogonal complement space, the null space and the rank of a given matrix A ∈ C^m×n.

Furthermore, A^† will stand for the Moore-Penrose inverse of A, i.e., the unique matrix satisfying the equations [1]:

Matrix partial orderings defined in C^m×n are considered in this paper. First of them is the star ordering introduced by Drazin [2], which is determined by

and can alternatively be specified as

Modifying (1.2), Baksalary and Mitra [3] proposed the left-star and right-star orderings characterized as

The second partial ordering of interest is minus (rank subtractivity) ordering devised by Hartwig [4] and independently by Nambooripad [5]. It can be characterized as

or

From (1.2), (1.4) and (1.5), it is seen that

Hartwig and Styan [6] considered the rank subtractivity and Schur complement, and shown that

when the conditions are required, and H^- is a inner generalized inverse of H (satisfying HH^-H = H).

Recently, the relationships between orderings defined in (1.2)-(1.7) and their powers with the emphasis laid on indicating classes of matrices were considered by several authors [7-9]. The results on matrix partial orderings and reverse order law were considered by Benitez et al. [10]. In this paper, we focus our attention on the partial orderings of block matrices. Special attention is paid to the star ordering of a sum of two matrices and the minus ordering of matrix product. To our knowledge, there is no article yet discussing these partial orderings in the literature.

If A ≺ C, B ≺ D, an interesting question is that whether the partitioned matrices and have the same orderings, and the solutions will be given in the following sections. Also, the relations between and and are considered.

In this section, we give some results on the star partial orderings of block matrices.

Theorem 1 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n and B, D ∈ C^m×k be star-ordered as . If R(A) = R(B), then .

Proof. On account of (1.2) and (1.3), since and R(A) = R(B), so

and

which according to (1.2) show that .   □

For the left-star orderings, we have a similar result.

Theorem 2 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n and B, D ∈ C^m×k be star-ordered as A_* ≤ C, B_* ≤ D.

If R(A) = R(B), then .

Proof. In view of (1.4), according to the assumptions, we have

On the other hand, on account of (1.4), from the conditions A_* ≤ C and B_* ≤ D, we have R(A) ⊆ R(C) and R(B) ⊆ R(D), which imply that . According to (1.4), we have .   □

Theorem 3 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n and B, D ∈ C^m×k be star-ordered as . If , then . Moreover, the condition can be replaced by A ≤ _*C (or B ≤ _*D).

Proof. The proof is trivial and therefore omitted.

Since and A ≤ _*B are equivalent to and , respectively, therefore, for the rowwise partitioned matrix we have the similar results.

Corollary 1 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n and B, D ∈ C^k×n be star-ordered as . If R(A*) = R(B*), then .

Corollary 2 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n and B, D ∈ C^k×n be star-ordered as A ≤ _*C, B ≤ _*D. If R(A*) = R(B*), then .

Corollary 3 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n and B, D ∈ C^k×n be star-ordered as . If A_* ≤ C (or B_* ≤ D), then .

Specially, we present the following results without proofs.

Theorem 4 Let A, B ∈ C^m×n, C ∈ C^m×k and D ∈ C^k×n. Then

(1) If and R(C) ⊆ R(A), then and . Moreover, both and imply , even though R(C) ⊄ R(A).

(2) If A_* ≤ B and R(C) ⊆ R(A), then and .

(3) If and R(D*) ⊆ R(A*), then and . Moreover, both and imply , even though R(D*) ⊄ R(A*).

(4) If A ≤ _*B and R(D*) ⊆ R(A*), then and .

Next, we use some examples to illustrate the above results. The case (1) shows that the condition R(C) ⊆ R(A) is sufficient but not necessary. For example, we take the matrices

It is easy to verify that . For , R(C) ⊄ R(A), and a simple computation shows that . For , R(C) ⊂ R(A), and we have as well as . On the other hand, we take the matrices

We can verify that . Although R(C) ⊄ R(A), we have .

Mitra [11] pointed out that the star ordering has the property that if and , then . Moreover, it is well known that the Löwner ordering has the property that for Hermitian nonnegative definite matrices A, B, C and D, if A ≤_L C and B ≤_L D, then A + B≤_L C + D. A direct consideration is to see whether the star ordering has the same property. And the solution is given in the following.

Theorem 5 Let A, B, C, D ∈ C^m×n, and . If R(A) = R(B) and R(A*) = R(B*), then .

Proof. The proof is trivial and therefore omitted.   □

In this section, we present some results on the minus orderings of the matrix product and block matrices. In our development, we will use the following preliminary results for our further discussion.

Lemma 1 [12]Let A ∈ C^m×n, B ∈ C^n×k. Then

Baksalary et al. [13] established a formula for the Moore-Penrose inverse of a columnwise partitioned matrix. Here, we state it as given below.

Lemma 2 Let A ∈ C^m×n and be partioned as . Then the following statements are equivalent:

(1)

(2) R(A₁) ∩ R(A₂) = {0},

where .

Lemma 3 [14]Let A ∈ C^m×n, B ∈ C^m×k, such that R(B) ⊆ R(A). Then

where M = I + B*(A^†)*A^†B.

It is easy to verify that, for a full column rank matrix C with proper size, the minus orders and are equivalent, but if C is not a full column rank matrix, this implication may be not true. The following theorem shows that when the implication is true.

Theorem 6 Let A, B ∈ C^m×n, C ∈ C^k×m. Then any two of the following statements imply the third:

(1) ,

(2) ,

(3) dim (R(B - A) ∩ N(C)) = dim (R(B) ∩ N(C)) - dim (R(A) ∩ N(C)).

Proof. Applying Lemma 1, we have

Hence,

On account of (1.6) this theorem can be easily obtained.   □

Similarly, we can prove the following results.

Corollary 4 Let A, B ∈ C^m×n, C ∈ C^n×k. Then any two of the following statements imply the third:

(1) ,

(2) ,

(3) dim (R(B* - A*) ∩ N(C*)) = dim (R(B*) ∩ N(C*)) - dim (R(A*) ∩ N(C*)).

Summarizing Theorem 6, Corollary 4 and N(C) = R^⊥(C*), the following results are obtained immediately.

Corollary 5 Let A, B ∈ C^m×n. Then the following statements are equivalent:

(1) ,

(2) and R(A) ⊆ R(B),

(3) and R(A*) ⊆ R(B*).

Furthermore,

and

In the previous section, we study the star ordering of block matrix. A similar consequence on the minus ordering is established as below.

Theorem 7 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n, and B, D ∈ C^m×k be minus ordered as , . If R(C) ∩ R(D) = {0}, then .

Proof. From and , in view of (1.7), it follows that

and

The conditions of the middle part of (3.1) and (3.2) show that

According to Lemma 2 and the assumption R(C) ∩ R(D) = {0}, we have

where Q_C = I_m - CC^† and QD = I_m - DD^†.

From (3.1) and (3.2), we can verify the following equalities

On account of (1.7), combining (3.3), (3.4) and (3.5) shows that    □

Note that, and lead to R(A) ⊆ R(C) and R(B) ⊆ R(D), hence, the condition R(C) ∩ R(D) = {0} implies that R(A) ∩ R(B) = {0}. Therefore, this theorem can also be proved by Definition (1.6).

Since

hence, .

The following statement can be deduced from Lemma 3.

Theorem 8 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n be minus ordered as , and B, D ∈ C^m×k. If R(D) ⊆ R(C), then if and only if B = AC^†D.

Corollary 6 Let A, C ∈ C^m×n be minus ordered as, , and B, D ∈ C^k×n.

(1) If and R(C*) ∩ R(D*) = {0}, then .

(2) If R(D*) ⊆ R(C*), then if and only if B = DC^†A.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

XL carried out the main part of this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This work is supported by Natural Science Foundation Project of CQ CSTC(Grant No. 2010BB9215). The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for constructive comments that improved the contents and presentation of this paper.

1. Ben-Israel, A, Greville, TNE: Generalized Inverses: Theory and Applications. Springer, New York (2003)

2. Drazin, MP: Natural structures on semigroups with involution. Bull Am Math Soc. 84, 139–141 (1978). Publisher Full Text

3. Baksalary, JK, Mitra, SK: Left-star and right-star partial orderings. Linear Algebra Appl. 149, 73–89 (1991). Publisher Full Text

4. Hartwig, RE: How to partially order regular elements. Math Jpn. 25, 1–13 (1980)

5. Nambooripad, KSS: The natural partial order on a regular semigroup. Proc Edinb Math Soc. 23, 249–260 (1980). Publisher Full Text

6. Hartwig, RE, Styan, GPH: On some characterizations of the "star" partial ordering for matrices and rank subtractivity. Linear Algebra Appl. 82, 145–161 (1986). Publisher Full Text

7. Baksalary, JK, Hauke, J, Liu, X, Liu, S: Relationships between partial orders of matrices and their powers. Linear Algebra Appl. 379, 277–287 (2004)

8. Baksalary, JK, Baksalary, OM, Liu, X: Further properties of the star, left-star, right-star, and minus partial orderings. Linear Algebra Appl. 375, 83–94 (2003)

9. Baksalary, JK, Baksalary, OM, Liu, X: Further relationships between certain partial orders of matrices and their squares. Linear Algebra Appl. 375, 171–180 (2003)

10. Benitez, J, Liu, X, Zhong, J: Some results on matrix partial orderings and reverse order law. Electron J Linear Algebra. 20, 254–273 (2010)

11. Mitra, SK: Infimum of a pair of matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 105, 163–182 (1988). Publisher Full Text

12. Marsaglia, G, Styan, GPH: Equalities and inequalities for ranks of matrices. Linear Multilinear Algebra. 2, 269–292 (1974). Publisher Full Text

13. Baksalary, JK, Baksalary, OM: Particular formulae for the Moore-Penrose inverse of a columnwise partitioned matrix. Linear Algebra Appl. 421, 16–23 (2007). Publisher Full Text

14. Wang, S, Yang, Z: Generalized inverse for matrices and its applications. Beijing University of Technology Press, Beijing (1996)