# Proof i since k m r 0 k 2 σ 1 m r 0 and k m r 0 k 2 f

• 25

This preview shows page 18 - 21 out of 25 pages.

Proof.(i) SincekM-R0k2=σ1(M-R0)andkM-R0k2F=i>0σ2i(M-R0)follows from Lemma 2.23b,c, we obtain from Lemma 2.34a thatkM-R0k2σr+1(M),kM-R0k2FXi>rσ2i(M)forR0withrank(R0)r.Since equality holds forR0=R, this is the solution of the minimisation problems.(ii) Ifσk=σk+1, we may interchange ther-th and(r+ 1)-th columns inUandVobtaining another singular-value decomposition. Thus, anotherRresults.utNext, we consider a convergent sequenceM(ν)and use Exercise 2.26.
2.7 Linear Algebra Procedures41Lemma 2.37.ConsiderM(ν)Kn×mwithM(ν)M. Then there are bestapproximationsR(ν)according to (2.24) so that a subsequence ofR(ν)convergestoR, which is the best approximation toM.Remark 2.38.The optimisation problems (2.24) can also be interpreted as the bestapproximation of the range ofM:max{kPMkF:Porthogonal projection withrank(P) =r}.(2.25)Proof.The best approximationR∈ RrtoMhas the representationR=PMforP=P(r)1(cf. Remark 2.35). By orthogonality,kPMk2F+k(I-P)Mk2F=kMk2Fholds. Hence minimisation ofk(I-P)Mk2F=kM-Rk2Fis equivalent to maximisingkPMk2F.ut2.7 Linear Algebra ProceduresFor later use, we formulate procedures based on the previous techniques.The reduced QR decomposition is characterised by the dimensionsnandm,the input matrixMKn×m, the rankr, and resulting factorsQandR. Thecorresponding procedure is denoted byprocedureRQR(n, m, r, M, Q, R);{reduced QR decomposition}input:MKn×m;output:r= rank(M),QKn×rorthogonal,RKr×mupper triangular.(2.26)and requiresNQR(n, m)operations (cf. Lemma 2.22).The modified QR decomposition in (2.15) produces an additional permutationmatrixPand the decomposition ofRinto[R1R2]:procedurePQR(n, m, r, M, P, Q, R1, R2);{pivotised QR decomposition}input:MKn×m;output:QKn×rorthogonal,PKm×mpermutation matrix,R1Kr×rupper triangular withr= rank(M), R2Kr×(m-r).(2.27)A modified version ofPQRwill be presented in (2.37).
422 Matrix ToolsThe (two-sided) reduced singular-value decomposition from Definition 2.27leads toprocedureRSVD(n, m, r, M, U, Σ, V);{reduced SVD}input:MKn×m;output:UKn×r, VKm×rorthogonal withr= rank(M),Σ= diag{σ1, . . . , σr} ∈Rr×rwithσ1. . .σr>0.(2.28)Here the integersn, mmay also be replaced with index setsIandJ. For the costNSVD(n, m), see Corollary 2.24a.The left-sided reduced singular-value decomposition (cf. Remark 2.28) is de-noted byprocedureLSVD(n, m, r, M, U, Σ);{left-sided reduced SVD}input:MKn×m;output:U, r, Σas in (2.28).(2.29)Its cost isNLSVD(n, m) :=12n(n+ 1)Nm+83n3,whereNmis the cost of the scalar product of rows ofM. In general,Nm= 2m-1holds, but it may be smaller for structured matrices (cf. Remark 7.16).In the procedures above,Mis a general matrix fromKn×m. MatricesM∈ Rr(cf. (2.6)) may be given in the formM=rXν=1rXμ=1cνμaνbHμ=ACBHaνKn, A=[a1a2· · ·]Kn×r,bνKm, B=[b1b2· · ·]Km×r!.(2.30)Then the following approach has a cost proportional ton+mifrn, m(cf.[138, Alg. 2.17]), but also forrn, mit is cheaper than the direct computation18of the productM=ACBHfollowed by a singular-value decomposition.

Course Hero member to access this document

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 25 pages?

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
N/A
Tags
Singular value decomposition, Orthogonal matrix
• • • 