Jump to content

Talk:Generalized singular value decomposition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

It seems to me that Q (in the GSVD of A,B) is not generally unitary, and it looks rather obvious that solution where U,V and Q are all simultaneously unitary does not exist. Unitary matrix on the other hand is orthogonal as far as I understand. This is also mentioned in Alter et al. PNAS 2003 100(6)3351 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=152296) where they mention that X^-1 (which corresponds to Q on the wiki page) is 'in general nonorthogonal'. I have not time to check this further right now. However, there seems to be some reason for caution.

Hi. Please add a time-stamp for the comments:) As of now, the form of the GSVD is correct, per the paper of Paige and Saunders. I made the definition more accurate today. What I'm wondering though, is whether it would, or would not, make the representation clearer to further decompose , where is unitary and is upper-triangular. This is how it reads in Paige and Saunders. However, that form can always be obtained by the QR-decomposition of , so I find it clearer not to introduce such additional matrices. On the other hand, LAPACK documentation also uses the upper-triangular form. --Kaba3 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]