Given a complex simple exceptional Lie algebra g, let Vλ be an irreducible finite-dimensional g-module with highest weight λ. We provide the precise dimension formula of dimVλ.
Citation: Yupei Zhang, Yongzhi Luan. Dimension formulas of the highest weight exceptional Lie algebra-modules[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 10010-10030. doi: 10.3934/math.2024490
[1] | Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad Imran Asjad, Ali Akgül, Dumitru Baleanu . Analytical solutions for free convection flow of Casson nanofluid over an infinite vertical plate. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2344-2358. doi: 10.3934/math.2021142 |
[2] | Muhammad Imran Asjad, Muhammad Haris Butt, Muhammad Armaghan Sadiq, Muhammad Danish Ikram, Fahd Jarad . Unsteady Casson fluid flow over a vertical surface with fractional bioconvection. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 8112-8126. doi: 10.3934/math.2022451 |
[3] | M. Mossa Al-Sawalha, Humaira Yasmin, Ali M. Mahnashi . Kink phenomena of the time-space fractional Oskolkov equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 31163-31179. doi: 10.3934/math.20241502 |
[4] | Hailun Wang, Fei Wu, Dongge Lei . A novel numerical approach for solving fractional order differential equations using hybrid functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 5596-5611. doi: 10.3934/math.2021331 |
[5] | Tuba Gulsen, Emrah Yilmaz, Ayse Çiğdem Yar . Proportional fractional Dirac dynamic system. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 9951-9968. doi: 10.3934/math.2024487 |
[6] | Iyad Suwan, Mohammed S. Abdo, Thabet Abdeljawad, Mohammed M. Matar, Abdellatif Boutiara, Mohammed A. Almalahi . Existence theorems for Ψ-fractional hybrid systems with periodic boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 171-186. doi: 10.3934/math.2022010 |
[7] | Hussain Gissy, Abdullah Ali H. Ahmadini, Ali H. Hakami . The travelling wave phenomena of the space-time fractional Whitham-Broer-Kaup equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2492-2508. doi: 10.3934/math.2025116 |
[8] | Mohamed Obeid, Mohamed A. Abd El Salam, Mohamed S. Mohamed . A novel generalized symmetric spectral Galerkin numerical approach for solving fractional differential equations with singular kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16724-16747. doi: 10.3934/math.2023855 |
[9] | Yong Xian Ng, Chang Phang, Jian Rong Loh, Abdulnasir Isah . Analytical solutions of incommensurate fractional differential equation systems with fractional order 1<α,β<2 via bivariate Mittag-Leffler functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2281-2317. doi: 10.3934/math.2022130 |
[10] | Abdulaziz Khalid Alsharidi, Saima Rashid, S. K. Elagan . Short-memory discrete fractional difference equation wind turbine model and its inferential control of a chaotic permanent magnet synchronous transformer in time-scale analysis. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 19097-19120. doi: 10.3934/math.2023975 |
Given a complex simple exceptional Lie algebra g, let Vλ be an irreducible finite-dimensional g-module with highest weight λ. We provide the precise dimension formula of dimVλ.
In this study, we work with real matrices of order n. As the results for n=1 are trivial, we assume n≥2 throughout. If the matrix A=(aij) is nonpositive (nonnegative), that is, aij≤0 (aij≥0), we write A≤0 (A≥0). Similarly, we write A≥B if and only if A−B≥0. According to the Perron-Frobenius theorem, if A is a nonnegative matrix, then the spectral radius, written as ρ(A), is a characteristic root of the matrix A.
The collection of Z-matrices comprises real matrices that possess nonpositive elements in their off-diagonal positions. This collection of matrices is commonly encountered in various mathematical and physical science contexts and is generally referred to as
Z=λI−A,A≥0, | (1) |
where λ is a real number and I is the n-square identity matrix. According to (1), there is a strong connection between the Z-matrices and the nonnegative matrices. Fielder and Markham [1] conducted the first comprehensive examination of the entire collection of Z-matrices.
If we set λ>ρ(A) in (1), we obtain the most famous subclass of Z-matrices, referred to as the M-matrices. The collection of M-matrices has many elegant characteristics and properties [2]. Many scholars have conducted extensive research on inverse M-matrices, that is, nonsingular matrices whose inverses are M-matrices [3]. One of the most important conclusions is that inverse M-matrices are nonnegative.
For any positive integer n, let {1,2,⋯,n}=⟨n⟩. Throughout this study, we assume that β is an increasing sequence of integers chosen from {1,2,⋯,n} and α=⟨n⟩∖β. By A[α,β], we denote the submatrix of the matrix A with rows α and columns β. In particular, if α=β, A[α,α] is abbreviated as A[α].
The following is the notion of the Schur complement. If A[β] is nonsingular, then the Schur complement with respect to A[β] in A, which is expressed as A/A[β], is defined as
A/A[β]=A[α]−A[α,β](A[β])−1A[β,α]. |
The Schur complement has been extensively utilized in various fields, including applied mathematics and statistics [4,5], particularly as an effective technique for deriving matrix inequalities, determining determinants, traces, norms, and handling large-scale matrix calculations. A significant amount of research on the Schur complements of specific matrices has been conducted since the late 1960s.
The Perron complement refers to a smaller square matrix obtained naturally from a given square matrix. This concept was initially introduced in [6] for computing the Perron vectors of finite-state Markov processes. The Perron complement is named after the Schur complement and has similar properties.
For an irreducible nonnegative matrix A of order n, Meyer [6] introduced the concept of Perron complement with respect to A[β] as follows:
P(A/A[β])=A[α]+A[α,β](ρ(A)I−A[β])−1A[β,α]. | (2) |
Recall that A is irreducible, it holds that ρ(A)>ρ(A[β]). This means that ρ(A)I−A[β] is a nonsingular M-matrix.
Lu [7] substituted λ for ρ(A) in (2) and defined the generalized Perron complement of A[β] as the matrix:
Pλ(A/A[β])=A[α]+A[α,β](λI−A[β])−1A[β,α], |
where λ>ρ(A[β]). Clearly, Pλ(A/A[β]) is well-defined for λ>ρ(A[β]).
Meyer [6] explored the properties of P(A/A[β]) in detail and obtained elegant results. For example, P(A/A[β]) inherits the nonnegativity and irreducibility of the matrix A. Moreover, P(A/A[β]) and the irreducible nonnegative matrix A share a common spectral radius. The Perron complement possesses various intriguing properties and applications. Notably, it can facilitate the analysis of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a matrix. Researchers can leverage the properties and relationships involving the Perron complement to gain insights into the structure and properties of the original matrix. In fact, Neumann [8] utilized the Perron complement to examine the characteristics of inverse M-matrices. For an irreducible nonnegative matrix A, Lu [7], Yang [9], and Huang [10] utilized the generalized Perron complement to determine the Perron root of A. Adm [11] investigated the extended Perron complement of a principal submatrix in a totally nonnegative matrix. Additionally, inequalities between minors of the extended Perron complement and the Schur complement are presented. Furthermore, Wang [12] and Zeng [13] analyzed the closure property for the Perron complement of several diagonally dominant matrices by using the entries and spectral radius of the original matrix.
Johnson [14] introduced the collection of N0-matrices as follows:
N=λI−A,β≤λ<ρ(A),A≥0, |
where β=max{ρ(˜A): ˜A denotes the principal submatrix of A with order n−1}.
Research on N0-matrices has led to the study of inverse N0-matrices, that is, nonsingular matrices whose inverses are N0-matrices. A systematic effort to consider N0-matrices and inverse N0-matrices was made in [14,15].
This study discusses the collection of inverse N0-matrices. Before beginning our study, we provide the following notions:
Again, let ∅≠β⊂⟨n⟩ and α=⟨n⟩∖β. For an irreducible nonpositive matrix N of order n, the generalized Perron complement with respect to N[β] is given by:
Pλ(N/N[β])=N[α]−N[α,β](λI+N[β])−1N[β,α], | (3) |
where λ>ρ(N[β]). According to (3), the conditions λ>ρ(N[β]) and N[β]≤0 ensure that the matrix λI+N[β] is a nonsingular M-matrix. This means that Pλ(N/N[β]) is well-defined.
If we set λ=ρ(N) in (3), we will acquire
P(N/N[β])=N[α]−N[α,β](ρ(N)I+N[β])−1N[β,α], | (4) |
and P(N/N[β]) is referred to as the Perron complement of N[β]. Because N is irreducible, ρ(N)>ρ(N[β]). Therefore, ρ(N)I+N[β] is a nonsingular M-matrix, and the expression (ρ(N)I+N[β])−1 continues to be well-defined.
The Perron complements and submatrices of special matrices are vital topics that have attracted the attention of many experts and scholars. Notably, the Perron complements of inverse M-matrices and Z-matrices have been the subject of extensive research [8,16]. Additionally, some interesting findings on Perron complements of special matrices [11,12,13,16] informed our investigation of inverse N0-matrices. In particular, Zhou [17] proposed the notion of an extended Perron complement of an irreducible nonpositive matrix by restricting λ≥ρ(N) in (3) and demonstrated that the Perron complements of irreducible N0-matrices and irreducible inverse N0-matrices are closed under the Perron complement. Based on the study of Zhou [17], this study aims to investigate the related properties of the generalized Perron complement involving inverse N0-matrices.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Initially, we prove the closure of the generalized Perron complement for the collection of inverse N0-matrices in Section 2. We demonstrate that for an inverse N0-matrix N, the Perron complement of N and the matrix N share the same spectral radius.
In Section 3, some general inequalities concerning the generalized Perron complement Pλ(N/N[β]), Perron complement P(N/N[β]), and submatrix N[α] of an inverse N0-matrix N are presented. In addition, we discuss the monotonicity of Pλ(N/N[β]) on (ρ(N[β]),+∞) and present the following result:
limλ→∞Pλ(N/N[β])=N[α]. |
These findings are contained in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2.
Finally, we compare ρ[Pλ(N/N[β])] and ρ(N) when N is an inverse N0-matrix.
For the convenience of writing in the following work, without confusion, Pλ(N/N[β]) (P(N/N[β])) is abbreviated Pλ(N/β) (P(N/β)), and N/N[β] is denoted N/β.
We begin this section by giving the following concept:
Definition 2.1. [18] A matrix A is defined as a reducible matrix if there exists a permutation matrix P in the form:
PAPT=(A11A12OA22), |
where A11 and A22 are square matrices. Otherwise, A is irreducible.
According to Definition 2.1, we obtain the important conclusion given below:
Lemma 2.1. Let A be a nonsingular matrix. Then, A is reducible if and only if A−1 is reducible.
Proof. A is reducible and nonsingular.
⇔ There must exist a permutation matrix P with the following form:
PAPT=(A11A12OA22), |
where A11 and A22 are nonsingular.
⇔ There must exist a permutation matrix P with the following form:
(PAPT)−1=(A11A12OA22)−1, |
where A11 and A22 are nonsingular. Note that
PT=P−1,(A11A12OA22)−1=(A−111−A−111A12A−122OA−122). |
⇔ There must exist a permutation matrix P with the following form:
PA−1PT=(A−111−A−111A12A−122OA−122). |
⇔ A−1 is reducible.
For the collection of N0-matrices, Johnson [14] presented the following results:
Lemma 2.2. Suppose that A is an Z-matrix. Then, the following are equivalent:
(1) A−1≤0 and A is irreducible;
(2) A is an N0-matrix.
We can reach a similar result by substituting A for A−1 in Lemma 2.2.
Lemma 2.3. Suppose that A−1 is an Z-matrix. Then, the following are equivalent:
(1) A≤0 and A−1 is irreducible;
(2) A−1 is an N0-matrix; that is, A is an inverse N0-matrix.
To derive our conclusions, we must recall some essential lemmas. These lemmas are mainly concerned with the properties of inverse N0-matrices, M-matrices, and nonnegative matrices. These play an important role in later proofs.
Lemma 2.4. [19] All the (inverse) N0-matrices are irreducible.
According to Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we discover that all inverse N0-matrices are nonpositive and irreducible.
Lemma 2.5. [14] If A is an inverse N0-matrix of order n and A[β] is nonsingular, then A/β is an inverse M-matrix for any ∅≠β⊂⟨n⟩.
Lemma 2.6. [20] The principal submatrix of order k (k≥2) of an inverse N0-matrix is also an inverse N0-matrix.
Lemma 2.7. [3] If D is a nonnegative diagonal matrix and A is an inverse M-matrix, then A+D is an inverse M-matrix.
Lemma 2.8. [21] If the nonsingular M-matrices A and B satisfy A≥B, then 0≤A−1≤B−1.
Lemma 2.9. [18] If A≥B≥0, then ρ(A)≥ρ(B).
We present the first conclusion of this study.
Theorem 2.1. Let N be an inverse N0-matrix of order n, and let ∅≠β⊂⟨n⟩, α=⟨n⟩∖β. We have that:
(1) For any λ>ρ(N[β]), the generalized Perron complement
Pλ(N/β)=N[α]−N[α,β](λI+N[β])−1N[β,α] |
is an inverse N0-matrix. In particular, the Perron complement
P(N/β)=N[α]−N[α,β](ρ(N)I+N[β])−1N[β,α] |
is an inverse N0-matrix;
(2) The matrix N and the Perron complement P(N/β) share the same spectral radius.
Proof. Note that the inverse N0-matrices are invariant under the simultaneous permutations of rows and columns. Hence, if N is an inverse N0-matrix, for any ∅≠β⊂⟨n⟩ and α=⟨n⟩∖β, we may assume that N can be partitioned as:
N=(N[α]N[α,β]N[β,α]N[β])=(BCDE). | (5) |
We have
Pλ(N/β)=B−C(λI+E)−1D,λ>ρ(E). |
We begin by showing that the generalized Perron complement Pλ(N/β) is nonpositive and [Pλ(N/β)]−1 is irreducible. Obviously, the inverse N0-matrix N is nonpositive and irreducible. This means that B, C, D, and E are all nonpositive. Note that if λ>ρ(E), then λI+E is an M-matrix, and hence, (λI+E)−1≥0. Therefore, we obtain Pλ(N/β)≤0.
In the following, we consider the irreducibility of [Pλ(N/β)]−1. Let
−N=(−B−C−D−E). |
It is obvious that −N is nonnegative and irreducible. For any λ>ρ(E), the generalized Perron complement of −N at λ (see [7]) is
Pλ(−N/β)=−B+(−C)(λI+E)−1(−D)=−B+C(λI+E)−1D=−Pλ(N/β). |
Because the generalized Perron complement Pλ(−N/β) of an irreducible nonnegative matrix −N is also nonnegative and irreducible (see Lemma 2 in [7]), we conclude that Pλ(N/β) is irreducible.
Now, assume that [Pλ(N/β)]−1 is reducible, according to Lemma 2.1, so is Pλ(N/β). This finding contradicts the fact that Pλ(N/β) is irreducible. Therefore, [Pλ(N/β)]−1 is irreducible.
Finally, we demonstrate that the matrix [Pλ(N/β)]−1 is an Z-matrix. We need the following result:
Let the m-square matrix K and the k-square matrix L be nonsingular. Let M be an m×k matrix, and let H be an k×m matrix. If L−1+HK−1M is nonsingular, then K+MLH is nonsingular, and the following equation holds:
(K+MLH)−1=K−1−K−1M(L−1+HK−1M)−1HK−1. |
This result is called the Sherman-Morrison formula [18].
It is clear that N is nonsingular because N is an inverse N0-matrix, that is, N−1 exists and N−1 is an N0-matrix. According to (5), the inverse of the matrix N has the following structure:
N−1=[B−1+B−1C(N/α)−1DB−1−B−1C(N/α)−1−(N/α)−1DB−1(N/α)−1]. |
On the other hand, according to Lemma 2.2, the N0-matrix N−1 is an Z-matrix, and the Z-matrices have nonpositive off-diagonal elements. This implies that
B−1C(N/α)−1≥0. | (6) |
Since N/α is the Schur complement of an inverse N0-matrix, from Lemma 2.5, we find that N/α is an inverse M-matrix. Therefore, one can obtain N/α≥0. By multiplying the two sides of inequality (6) by the nonnegative matrix N/α, we obtain B−1C≥0. By utilizing a similar approach, we obtain DB−1≥0. Additionally, according to Lemma 2.7, λI+N/α is an inverse M-matrix when λ>ρ(E). Therefore, (λI+N/α)−1 and (N/α)−1 are M-matrices. Assuming that (λI+N/α)−1≥(N/α)−1, by Lemma 2.8, one can obtain λI+N/α≤N/α. This contradicts λI+N/α>N/α when λ>ρ(E). Therefore, we have (λI+N/α)−1<(N/α)−1. Further, we obtain
B−1C(λI+N/α)−1DB−1≤B−1C(N/α)−1DB−1 | (7) |
using the fact that B−1C≥0 and DB−1≥0. By the Sherman-Morrison formula, we obtain
[Pλ(N/β)]−1=[B−C(λI+E)−1D]−1=[B+(−C)(λI+E)−1D]−1=B−1−B−1(−C)[(λI+E)+DB−1(−C)]−1DB−1=B−1+B−1C(λI+E−DB−1C)−1DB−1=B−1+B−1C(λI+N/α)−1DB−1. | (8) |
The last equality holds since
N/α=E−DB−1C. |
Combined with (7) and (8), we get
[Pλ(N/β)]−1≤B−1+B−1C(N/α)−1DB−1. | (9) |
In addition, we have
N/β=B−CE−1D. |
Using the Sherman-Morrison formula again, one can get
(N/β)−1=(B−CE−1D)−1=[B+(−C)E−1D]−1=B−1−B−1(−C)[E+DB−1(−C)]−1DB−1=B−1+B−1C(E−DB−1C)−1DB−1=B−1+B−1C(N/α)−1DB−1. | (10) |
It follows from (9) and (10) that
[Pλ(N/β)]−1≤(N/β)−1. | (11) |
By Lemma 2.5, we see N/β is an inverse M-matrix, that is, (N/β)−1 is an M-matrix. According to the definition of M-matrices, (N/β)−1 is an Z-matrix. From (11), [Pλ(N/β)]−1 is also an Z-matrix. Together with the previous analysis, Pλ(N/β)≤0 and [Pλ(N/β)]−1 is irreducible. According to Lemma 2.3, we deduce that Pλ(N/β) is an inverse N0-matrix. In particular, P(N/β) is an inverse N0-matrix.
Next, we demonstrate that ρ(N) is the spectral radius of the Perron complement
P(N/β)=B−C[ρ(N)I+E]−1D. |
According to the Perron-Frobenius theorem, for the nonnegative irreducible matrix −N, there must exist a positive vector u that satisfies −Nu=ρ(N)u. Partition u=(u1u2) conformally with −N. We thus have
(−B−C−D−E)(u1u2)=ρ(N)(u1u2). |
The above equation is equivalent to
Bu1+Cu2=−ρ(N)u1 | (12) |
and
Du1+Eu2=−ρ(N)u2. | (13) |
From (13), we infer that
u2=−[ρ(N)I+E]−1Du1. | (14) |
Therefore,
P(N/β)u1=[B−C(ρ(N)I+E)−1D]u1=Bu1−C[ρ(N)I+E]−1Du1=Bu1+Cu2(By(14))=−ρ(N)u1.(By(12)) |
This shows that −ρ(N) is a characteristic root of the matrix P(N/β), which has an associated positive eigenvector given by u1. Thus, ρ(N) is the spectral radius of P(N/β).
In what follows, we provide a concrete example to verify our conclusions. Consider the following 3×3 nonpositive matrix:
N=(−0.2500−0.3000−0.3500−1.0000−0.4000−0.8000−0.5000−0.4000−0.3000). |
Since
N−1=(4.0000−1.0000−2.0000−2.00002.0000−3.0000−4.0000−1.00004.0000) |
is an irreducible Z-matrix, according to Lemma 2.3, N is an inverse N0-matrix.
Suppose α={1,2},β={3}. We obtain
N[α]=(−0.2500−0.3000−1.0000−0.4000),N[α,β]=(−0.3500−0.8000), | (15) |
N[β,α]=(−0.5000−0.4000),N[β]=(−0.3000). |
In addition, we have
ρ(N)=1.3483,ρ(N[β])=0.3000. |
By calculating, we obtain
Pλ(N/β)=N[α]−N[α,β](λI+N[β])−1N[β,α]=(−0.2500−0.3000−1.0000−0.4000)−(−0.3500−0.8000)(λ−0.3000)−1(−0.5000−0.4000). |
Note that λ>ρ(N[β]), we may take λ=0.5. We acquire
Pλ(N/β)=(−1.1250−1.0000−3.0000−2.0000). | (16) |
Setting λ=ρ(N)=1.3483, we obtain
P(N/β)=(−0.4169−0.4335−1.3816−0.7053). | (17) |
It is obvious that Pλ(N/β) and P(N/β) are both nonpositive. Moreover,
[Pλ(N/β)]−1=(2.6667−1.3333−4.00001.5000) | (18) |
and
[P(N/β)]−1=(2.3128−1.4218−4.53081.3673) | (19) |
are irreducible Z-matrices. We conclude from Lemma 2.3 that Pλ(N/β) and P(N/β) are inverse N0-matrices. This result is consistent with the conclusion of Theorem 2.1 (1).
In the following, we compute the spectral radius of P(N/β). Direct calculation by MATLAB yields that ρ[P(N/β)]=1.3483=ρ(N). This result complies with Theorem 2.1 (2).
In this section, we present inequalities on three matrices: Pλ(N/β), P(N/β), and N[α] under certain conditions. In addition, inequalities concerning the inverses of the three matrices are shown later.
Theorem 3.1. Let N be an inverse N0-matrix of order n. Then, the following orderings hold for any ∅≠β⊂⟨n⟩ and α=⟨n⟩∖β:
(1) Pλ(N/β)≤P(N/β)≤N[α], for ρ(N[β])<λ≤ρ(N);
(2) P(N/β)≤Pλ(N/β)≤N[α], for λ≥ρ(N).
In addition, for λ2≥λ1>ρ(N[β]), it holds that
Pλ2(N/β)≥Pλ1(N/β) |
and
limλ→∞Pλ(N/β)=N[α]. |
Proof. Without loss of generality, for any ∅≠β⊂⟨n⟩ and α=⟨n⟩∖β, we assume that N is simultaneously permuted to the following block matrix:
N=(N[α]N[α,β]N[β,α]N[β])=(BCDE). |
We have
Pλ(N/β)=B−C(λI+E)−1D,λ>ρ(N[β])=ρ(E) |
and
P(N/β)=B−C[ρ(N)I+E]−1D. |
Here it should be mentioned that C≤0(C≠O), D≤0(D≠O), and E≤0(E≠O), and O denotes the zero matrix. This is guaranteed by the fact that N is nonpositive and irreducible. In addition, if the order of E equals one, that is, E=ann, then we must have ann<0; if the order of E is greater than or equal to two, according to Lemma 2.6, the matrix E, as a submatrix of N, is an inverse N0-matrix, and inverse N0-matrices are nonpositive and irreducible. In other words, E is nonpositive and irreducible. Moreover, the irreducibility is independent of the main diagonal elements; therefore, λI+E and ρ(N)I+E are irreducible. To arrive at our conclusions, we divide the proof into two cases.
(ⅰ) Consider the case of ρ(N[β])<λ≤ρ(N).
Because E is nonpositive and irreducible and ρ(N)≥λ>ρ(N[β]), according to the definition of M-matrices, both λI+E and ρ(N)I+E are irreducible M-matrices. Note that λI+E≤ρ(N)I+E, by Lemma 2.8, we obtain
(λI+E)−1≥[ρ(N)I+E]−1≥0. |
Considering that C≤0 and D≤0, we further have that
C(λI+E)−1D≥C[ρ(N)I+E]−1D≥0. |
By the definitions of Pλ(N/β) and P(N/β), we have
Pλ(N/β)≤P(N/β)≤B=N[α]. |
(ⅱ) Consider the case of λ≥ρ(N).
Because N is an inverse N0-matrix, N is clearly irreducible. Thus, ρ(N)>ρ(N[β]). As in case (i), when λ≥ρ(N)>ρ(N[β]), we can easily deduce that both λI+E and ρ(N)I+E are irreducible M-matrices. Note that λI+E≥ρ(N)I+E, by Lemma 2.8, we obtain
[ρ(N)I+E]−1≥(λI+E)−1≥0. |
Combining C≤0 and D≤0, we obtain
C[ρ(N)I+E]−1D≥C(λI+E)−1D≥0. |
From the above inequality, we further obtain
B−C[ρ(N)I+E]−1D≤B−C(λI+E)−1D≤B. |
According to the definitions of Pλ(N/β) and P(N/β), we get
P(N/β)≤Pλ(N/β)≤B=N[α]. |
Now, suppose λ2≥λ1>ρ(N[β]), we have
Pλ2(N/β)−Pλ1(N/β)=C(λ1I+E)−1D−C(λ2I+E)−1D=C[(λ1I+E)−1−(λ2I+E)−1]D. |
Because λ1I+E,λ2I+E are irreducible nonsingular M-matrices and λ1I+E≤λ2I+E, from Lemma 2.8, it holds that
(λ1I+E)−1≥(λ2I+E)−1, |
that is,
(λ1I+E)−1−(λ2I+E)−1≥0. |
As C≤0 and D≤0, we obtain
C[(λ1I+E)−1−(λ2I+E)−1]D≥0. |
This means that Pλ2(N/β)≥Pλ1(N/β).
In addition,
limλ→∞Pλ(N/β)=limλ→∞[B−C(λI+E)−1D]=limλ→∞[B−1λC(I+1λE)−1D]=limλ→∞[B−1λC(I−1λE+1λ2E2+⋯)D]=B=N[α]. |
Therefore, the proof of Theorem 3.1 has been completed.
In the following section, we compare [Pλ(N/β)]−1, [P(N/β)]−1, and (N[α])−1. We recall the following result from Johnson [14].
Lemma 3.1. [14] If N1,N2 are N0-matrices of order n≥2 such that N1≥N2, then N1−1≤N2−1.
We have a similar conclusion, as follows:
Corollary 3.1. If N1,N2 are inverse N0-matrices of order n≥2 such that N1≥N2, then N1−1≤N2−1.
Proof. To illustrate this issue, two aspects are considered.
(ⅰ) Consider the case of N1=N2.
Obviously, we have N1−1=N2−1.
(ⅱ) Consider the case of N1>N2.
Because N1 and N2 are inverse N0-matrices, we know that N1−1 and N2−1 are N0-matrices. Suppose N1−1≥N2−1. According to Lemma 3.1, one can obtain N1≤N2. This contradicts N1>N2. Thus, we have N1−1<N2−1.
In summary, for two inverse N0-matrices N1,N2 with N1≥N2, we have N1−1≤N2−1.
The second conclusion of this section is presented below.
Theorem 3.2. Let N be an inverse N0-matrix of order n. Then, the following orderings hold for any ∅≠β⊂⟨n⟩ and α=⟨n⟩∖β:
(1) [Pλ(N/β)]−1≥[P(N/β)]−1≥(N[α])−1, for ρ(N[β])<λ≤ρ(N);
(2) [P(N/β)]−1≥[Pλ(N/β)]−1≥(N[α])−1, for λ≥ρ(N).
In addition, when λ2≥λ1>ρ(N[β]), it holds that
[Pλ2(N/β)]−1≤[Pλ1(N/β)]−1 |
and
limλ→∞[Pλ(N/β)]−1=(N[α])−1. |
Proof. According to Lemma 2.6 and Theorem 2.1, we find that the matrices Pλ(N/β), P(N/β), and N[α] are all inverse N0-matrices. From Theorem 3.1, when ρ(N[β])<λ≤ρ(N), we have that:
Pλ(N/β)≤P(N/β)≤N[α]. |
By Corollary 3.1, it holds that
[Pλ(N/β)]−1≥[P(N/β)]−1≥(N[α])−1. |
Theorem 3.2 (2) is similarly proven. Moreover, from (8), we obtain
limλ→∞[Pλ(N/β)]−1=limλ→∞[B−1+B−1C(λI+N/α)−1DB−1] = B−1 = (N[α])−1. |
This completes the proof of Theorem 3.2.
Next, we examine the correctness of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. We again consider the example in Section 2 and validate our conclusions in three cases.
(ⅰ) For ρ(N[β])<λ≤ρ(N), that is, 0.3<λ≤1.3483, we may take λ=0.5, as in Section 2. From (15)–(17), we obtain
(−1.1250−1.0000−3.0000−2.0000)≤(−0.4169−0.4355−1.3816−0.7053)≤(−0.2500−0.3000−1.0000−0.4000). |
This means that
Pλ(N/β)≤P(N/β)≤N[α]. |
In addition,
(N[α])−1=(2.0000−1.5000−5.00001.2500). | (20) |
From (18)–(20), we obtain
(2.6667−1.3333−4.00001.5000)≥(2.3128−1.4218−4.53081.3673)≥(2.0000−1.5000−5.00001.2500). |
This implies that
[Pλ(N/β)]−1≥[P(N/β)]−1≥(N[α])−1. |
(ⅱ) For λ≥ρ(N)=1.3483, we may take λ=2.3. One can obtain
Pλ(N/β)=(−0.3375−0.3700−1.2000−0.5600) | (21) |
and
[Pλ(N/β)]−1=(2.1961−1.4510−4.70591.3235). | (22) |
According to (15), (17), and (21), we obtain
(−0.4169−0.4355−1.3816−0.7053)≤(−0.3375−0.3700−1.2000−0.5600)≤(−0.2500−0.3000−1.0000−0.4000). |
This shows that
P(N/β)≤Pλ(N/β)≤N[α]. |
From (19), (20), and (22), we obtain
(2.3128−1.4218−4.53081.3673)≥(2.1961−1.4510−4.70591.3235)≥(2.0000−1.5000−5.00001.2500). |
It could be seen that
[P(N/β)]−1≥[Pλ(N/β)]−1≥(N[α])−1. |
(ⅲ) For λ2≥λ1>ρ(N[β])=0.3, we set λ2=0.5, λ1=0.4. By calculation, we obtain
Pλ2(N/β)=(−1.1250−1.0000−3.0000−2.0000)≥Pλ1(N/β)=(−2.0000−1.7000−5.0000−3.6000) |
and
[Pλ2(N/β)]−1=(2.6667−1.3333−4.00001.5000)≤[Pλ1(N/β)]−1=(2.7692−1.3077−3.84621.5385). |
In addition,
Pλ(N/β)=(−0.2500−0.3000−1.0000−0.4000)−(λ−0.3000)−1(0.17500.14000.4000 0.3200) |
and
[Pλ(N/β)]−1=(N[α])−1+(N[α])−1N[α,β](λI+N/α)−1N[β,α](N[α])−1=(2.0000−1.5000−5.00001.25000)+(λ+0.2500)−1(0.50000.12500.75000.1875). |
It is simple to see
limλ→∞Pλ(N/β)=(−0.2500−0.3000−1.0000−0.4000)=N[α] |
and
limλ→∞[Pλ(N/β)]−1=(2.0000−1.5000−5.00001.2500)=(N[α])−1. |
The above calculations are consistent with Theorems 3.1 and 3.2.
Finally, we present conclusions concerning the spectral radius of an inverse N0-matrix and its generalized Perron complement, which are similar to the results proposed by Lu [7].
Theorem 3.3. Let N be an inverse N0-matrix of order n. Then, the following conclusions hold for any ∅≠β⊂⟨n⟩ and α=⟨n⟩∖β:
(1) ρ[Pλ(N/β)]≥ρ(N), for ρ(N[β])<λ≤ρ(N);
(2) ρ[Pλ(N/β)]≤ρ(N), for λ≥ρ(N).
Proof. By Theorem 3.1, for ρ(N)≥λ>ρ(N[β]), we obtain
P(N/β)=Pρ(N)(N/β)≥Pλ(N/β). |
Considering that P(N/β) and Pλ(N/β) are inverse N0-matrices and that inverse N0-matrices are nonpositive, we have
−Pλ(N/β)≥−P(N/β)≥0. |
According to Lemma 2.9, we obtain
ρ[−Pλ(N/β)]≥ρ[−P(N/β)]. |
It is simple that
ρ[−Pλ(N/β)]=ρ[Pλ(N/β)],ρ[−P(N/β)]=ρ[P(N/β)]=ρ(N). |
Therefore, we conclude Theorem 3.3 (1) immediately. Theorem 3.3 (2) can be similarly proven.
We end this section by verifying Theorem 3.3 through the previous example.
For ρ(N[β])<λ≤ρ(N), as before, we take λ=0.5. By calculating, we obtain
ρ[Pλ(N/β)] = 3.3490≥ρ(N)=1.3483. |
For λ≥ρ(N), we set λ=2.3. Through computation, one can obtain
ρ[Pλ(N/β)] = 1.1243≤ρ(N)=1.3483. |
These comply with Theorem 3.3.
For the collection of inverse N0-matrices, we introduced the notion of a generalized Perron complement. By utilizing the properties of M-matrices, nonnegative matrices, and inverse N0-matrices, we proved the closure of the generalized Perron complement. Furthermore, we have rigorously proven that, as an inverse N0-matrix N, the Perron complement P(N/β) and the matrix N possess the same spectral radius.
In addition, we presented some general inequalities concerning the inverse N0-matrices. The generalized Perron complement Pλ(N/β), Perron complement P(N/β), and submatrix N[α] are closely related to the original inverse N0-matrix N. We compared the three types of matrices under certain conditions. The inequalities concerning the inverses of the three types of matrices are also shown. We also discussed the monotonicity and limitations of the generalized Perron complement.
In conclusion, we investigated the relationship between the spectral radius of the generalized Perron complement and that of the inverse N0-matrices.
In summary, our results offer informative perspectives on inverse N0-matrices, which can be considered a useful addition to the current body of research.
Qin Zhong: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing-original draft, Methodology; Ling Li: Formal analysis, Writing-review & editing, Investigation, Data curation. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The Natural Science Research Project of the Education Department of Sichuan Province (No.18ZB0364) and Sichuan University Jinjiang College Cultivation Project of Sichuan Higher Education Institutions of Double First-class Construction Gong-ga Plan provided financial support for this research.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
[1] | P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, D. Sénéchal, Conformal field theory, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2256-9 |
[2] | E. Dynkin, Semisimple subalgebras of semisimple Lie algebras (Russian), Mat. Sbornik N. S., 30 (1952), 349–462. Available from: http://mi.mathnet.ru/sm5435. |
[3] | E. Dynkin, Semisimple subalgebras of semisimple Lie algebras (English), In: American Mathematical Society Translations: Series 2, Providence: American Mathematical Society, 6 (1957), 111–244. |
[4] |
J.-S. Huang, C.-B. Zhu, Weyl's construction and tensor power decomposition for G2, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 127 (1999), 925–934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-99-04583-9 doi: 10.1090/S0002-9939-99-04583-9
![]() |
[5] | A. Knapp, Lie groups beyond an introduction, 2 Eds., Boston: Birkhäuser, 2002. |
[6] | Y. Luan, Dynkin indices, Casimir elements and branching rules, Front. Math., in press. |
[7] | Y. Luan, Nilpotent orbits and Dynkin indices of Lie algebras, Ph.D. thesis, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2021. |
[8] |
Y. Luan, Lie algebra e712 and Dynkin index, Commun. Algebra, 51 (2023), 3929–3951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2023.2193633 doi: 10.1080/00927872.2023.2193633
![]() |
[9] |
D. Panyushev, On the Dynkin index of a principal sl2-subalgebra, Adv. Math., 221 (2009), 1115–1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2009.01.015 doi: 10.1016/j.aim.2009.01.015
![]() |
[10] |
D. Panyushev, The Dynkin index and sl2-subalgebras of simple Lie algebras, J. Algebra, 430 (2015), 15–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.01.033 doi: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.01.033
![]() |
1. | Kehong Zheng, Ali Raza, Ahmed M. Abed, Hina Khursheed, Laila F. Seddek, Ali Hasan Ali, Absar Ul Haq, New fractional approach for the simulation of (Ag) and (TiO2) mixed hybrid nanofluid flowing through a channel: Fractal fractional derivative, 2023, 2214157X, 102948, 10.1016/j.csite.2023.102948 | |
2. | Yuchi Leng, Shuguang Li, Salem Algarni, Wasim Jamshed, Talal Alqahtani, Rabha W. Ibrahim, Kashif Irshad, Fayza Abdel Aziz ElSeabee, Ahmed M. Hassan, Computational study of magnetized and dual stratified effects on Non-Darcy Casson nanofluid flow: An activation energy analysis, 2024, 53, 2214157X, 103804, 10.1016/j.csite.2023.103804 | |
3. | Aziz Ur Rehman, Fahd Jarad, Muhammad Bilal Riaz, A Fractional Study of MHD Casson Fluid Motion With Thermal Radiative Flux and Heat Injection/Suction Mechanism Under Ramped Wall Condition: Application of Rabotnov Exponential Kernel, 2024, 18, 2300-5319, 84, 10.2478/ama-2024-0011 | |
4. | Aziz Ur Rehman, Muhammad Bilal Riaz, Jan Martinovic, MHD Radiative Casson Fluid Flow with Ramped Influence through a Porous Media via Constant Proportional Caputo Approach, 2024, 63, 1572-9575, 10.1007/s10773-024-05667-y | |
5. | Syed Tauseef Saeed, Mustafa Inc, Mohammed Z. Alqarni, Neyara Radwan, Series solution of time-fractional mhd viscoelastic model through non-local kernel approach, 2024, 56, 1572-817X, 10.1007/s11082-024-06674-3 | |
6. | Syed Tauseef Saeed, Khalid Arif, Mubashir Qayyum, Exact solutions of non-singularized MHD Casson fluid with ramped conditions: A comparative study, 2024, 16, 1687-8132, 10.1177/16878132241272170 |