Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In“Converse” of Taylor's theoremHow “generalized eigenvalues” combine into producing the spectral measure?Can be this operator extended to an unbounded self-adjoint operator ? Resonance of Schrödinger operatorFinding the spectrum of the composition of a projection with a multiplication operatorSchrodinger's equation via Spectral TheoremIs there an asymptotic bound for this oscillatory integral?If $H$ is the closure of the set of solenoidal smooth vecor fields in $L^2$ and $P_H$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $H$, then $P_HH_0^1⊆H_0^1$Gaps in the spectrum of Laplace-Beltrami operatorsPerturbation theory compact operatorIf $A$ is a dissipative self-adjoint operator with spectral decomposition $(H_λ)$, then $e^tAx$ tends to the projection of $x$ onto $H_0$ as $t→∞$

Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In“Converse” of Taylor's theoremHow “generalized eigenvalues” combine into producing the spectral measure?Can be this operator extended to an unbounded self-adjoint operator ? Resonance of Schrödinger operatorFinding the spectrum of the composition of a projection with a multiplication operatorSchrodinger's equation via Spectral TheoremIs there an asymptotic bound for this oscillatory integral?If $H$ is the closure of the set of solenoidal smooth vecor fields in $L^2$ and $P_H$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $H$, then $P_HH_0^1⊆H_0^1$Gaps in the spectrum of Laplace-Beltrami operatorsPerturbation theory compact operatorIf $A$ is a dissipative self-adjoint operator with spectral decomposition $(H_λ)$, then $e^tAx$ tends to the projection of $x$ onto $H_0$ as $t→∞$










11












$begingroup$


Assume that $f:mathbb Rtomathbb R$ is continuous.
Given a real symmetric matrix $AintextSym(n)$, we can define $f(A)$ by applying $f$ to its spectrum. More explicitly,
$$ f(A):=sum f(lambda)P_lambda,qquad A=sumlambda P_lambda. $$
Here both sums are finite, and the second one is the decomposition of $A$ as a linear combination of orthogonal projections ($P_lambda$ is the projection onto the eigenspace for the eigenvalue $lambda$, so that $P_lambda P_lambda'=0$). Such decomposition exists and is unique by the spectral theorem.



I guess it is well known that $f:textSym(n)totextSym(n)$ is continuous.




Assuming $fin C^infty(mathbb R)$, is the induced map $f:textSym(n)totextSym(n)$ also smooth?




I think I can show that it is (Fréchet) differentiable everywhere, but I am wondering whether it is always $C^1$ or even $C^infty$.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    11












    $begingroup$


    Assume that $f:mathbb Rtomathbb R$ is continuous.
    Given a real symmetric matrix $AintextSym(n)$, we can define $f(A)$ by applying $f$ to its spectrum. More explicitly,
    $$ f(A):=sum f(lambda)P_lambda,qquad A=sumlambda P_lambda. $$
    Here both sums are finite, and the second one is the decomposition of $A$ as a linear combination of orthogonal projections ($P_lambda$ is the projection onto the eigenspace for the eigenvalue $lambda$, so that $P_lambda P_lambda'=0$). Such decomposition exists and is unique by the spectral theorem.



    I guess it is well known that $f:textSym(n)totextSym(n)$ is continuous.




    Assuming $fin C^infty(mathbb R)$, is the induced map $f:textSym(n)totextSym(n)$ also smooth?




    I think I can show that it is (Fréchet) differentiable everywhere, but I am wondering whether it is always $C^1$ or even $C^infty$.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      11












      11








      11


      5



      $begingroup$


      Assume that $f:mathbb Rtomathbb R$ is continuous.
      Given a real symmetric matrix $AintextSym(n)$, we can define $f(A)$ by applying $f$ to its spectrum. More explicitly,
      $$ f(A):=sum f(lambda)P_lambda,qquad A=sumlambda P_lambda. $$
      Here both sums are finite, and the second one is the decomposition of $A$ as a linear combination of orthogonal projections ($P_lambda$ is the projection onto the eigenspace for the eigenvalue $lambda$, so that $P_lambda P_lambda'=0$). Such decomposition exists and is unique by the spectral theorem.



      I guess it is well known that $f:textSym(n)totextSym(n)$ is continuous.




      Assuming $fin C^infty(mathbb R)$, is the induced map $f:textSym(n)totextSym(n)$ also smooth?




      I think I can show that it is (Fréchet) differentiable everywhere, but I am wondering whether it is always $C^1$ or even $C^infty$.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Assume that $f:mathbb Rtomathbb R$ is continuous.
      Given a real symmetric matrix $AintextSym(n)$, we can define $f(A)$ by applying $f$ to its spectrum. More explicitly,
      $$ f(A):=sum f(lambda)P_lambda,qquad A=sumlambda P_lambda. $$
      Here both sums are finite, and the second one is the decomposition of $A$ as a linear combination of orthogonal projections ($P_lambda$ is the projection onto the eigenspace for the eigenvalue $lambda$, so that $P_lambda P_lambda'=0$). Such decomposition exists and is unique by the spectral theorem.



      I guess it is well known that $f:textSym(n)totextSym(n)$ is continuous.




      Assuming $fin C^infty(mathbb R)$, is the induced map $f:textSym(n)totextSym(n)$ also smooth?




      I think I can show that it is (Fréchet) differentiable everywhere, but I am wondering whether it is always $C^1$ or even $C^infty$.







      fa.functional-analysis real-analysis sp.spectral-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Apr 6 at 17:05









      MizarMizar

      1,6581024




      1,6581024




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          9












          $begingroup$

          Yes. The can be derived from the resolvent formalism.



          I'll just do the $C^1$ case and leave higher derivatives as an exercise - ask if it's not clear how to generalize. I am basically using formula (2.7) of "On differentiability of symmetric matrix valued functions", Alexander Shapiro, http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2002/07/499.html. (I think there's a typo in the middle case of the display preceeding (2.7): $f(mu_j)/(mu_j-mu_k)$ should be $(f(mu_j)-f(mu_k))/(mu_j-mu_k).$) Shapiro's paper references "(cf., [4])", where [4] is the 600-page textbook "Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators" by T. Kato, but I don't know if that is helpful for this specific question.



          I will call the induced map $f^*$ to distinguish it from $f.$ I'll also call the dimension $p$ instead of $n.$



          It suffices to show $f^*$ is $C^1$ for matrices with eigenvalues in a given bounded interval $J.$ Approximate $f$ by polynomials $f_n$ such that $sup_xin J|f(x)-f_n(x)|to 0$ and $sup_xin J|f'(x)-f_n'(x)|to 0.$ Since $f_n$ is analytic, $f^*_n$ can be evaluated using resolvents:



          $$f_n^*(X) = frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1 dz$$
          where $C$ is an anticlockwise circle in the complex plane with $J$ in its interior. For $HinmathrmSym(p),$



          beginalign*
          f_n^*(X+H)
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X-H)^-1 dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1+f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1H(z I_p - X)^-1 +dots dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)sum_lambda(z-lambda)^-1P_lambda +f_n(z)sum_lambda_1,lambda_2(z-lambda_1)^-1(z-lambda_2)^-1P_lambda_1HP_lambda_2+dots dz\
          &= f_n^*(X)+sum_lambda_1,lambda_2 P_lambda_1 H P_lambda_2int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda_1+(1-t)lambda_2)+dots dt
          endalign*



          The second equality uses the Taylor expansion $$(A-H)^-1=A^-1+A^-1HA^-1+dots$$ with $A=z I_p-X.$
          The third equality uses $(zI_p - X)^-1=sum_lambda (z-lambda)^-1 P_lambda.$ The fourth equality uses $int_C f_n(z)(z-lambda)^-1(z-mu)^-1dz =int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda+(1-t)mu)dt.$



          This gives a bound



          $$|Df^*_n(X)H| leq c_p|H|cdot sup_xin J|f'_n(x)-f_n'(x)|$$



          for some constant $c_p>0,$ where $|cdot|$ is any matrix norm. This shows that $f^*$ can be approximated arbitrarily well in the $C^1$ norm, which means it's $C^1.$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Excellent! I see how to generalize it to higher derivatives. I am amazed by the speed of your answer :-)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 18:15










          • $begingroup$
            Higher derivative estimates follow from the formula $sum_j=0^kfracf(lambda_j)prod_ellneq j(lambda_j-lambda_ell)=frac1int_Delta_kf^(k)(sum_jt_jlambda_j),dt_0cdots dt_k$, $Delta_k$ being the standard simplex $t_jge 0,sum t_j=1$ (assuming wlog the $lambda_j$'s are distinct).
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago










          • $begingroup$
            The formula, in turn, is easy to prove by induction: we can subtract $f(lambda_0)$ from each numerator in the left-hand side (thanks to this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/104262/…) and obtain $LHS=sum_j=1^kint_0^1fracf'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)lambda_j)prod_ellneq j,ell>0(lambda_j-lambda_ell)$. We are done applying induction with $g:=f'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$ in place of $f(z)$ and noticing $g^(k-1)(z)=(1-t_0)^k-1f^(k)(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago


















          0












          $begingroup$

          Yes. To show that f(A) is n-times differentiable at A=B, simply interpolate f by a polynomial P so that P and its derivatives up to order n agree with f on the spectrum of B. Clearly P(A) is n-times differentiable, and it isn't too much work to show that f and P have the same nth derivative.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, I thought about this strategy, but it's not so clear why this gives $C^n$ regularity rather than just a Taylor approximation of degree $n$ at each $A$. (If one manages to infer such an approximation exists with coefficients depending continuously on $A$, then one could invoke this result: mathoverflow.net/questions/88501/converse-of-taylors-theorem)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 23:00












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327330%2fsmoothness-of-finite-dimensional-functional-calculus%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          9












          $begingroup$

          Yes. The can be derived from the resolvent formalism.



          I'll just do the $C^1$ case and leave higher derivatives as an exercise - ask if it's not clear how to generalize. I am basically using formula (2.7) of "On differentiability of symmetric matrix valued functions", Alexander Shapiro, http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2002/07/499.html. (I think there's a typo in the middle case of the display preceeding (2.7): $f(mu_j)/(mu_j-mu_k)$ should be $(f(mu_j)-f(mu_k))/(mu_j-mu_k).$) Shapiro's paper references "(cf., [4])", where [4] is the 600-page textbook "Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators" by T. Kato, but I don't know if that is helpful for this specific question.



          I will call the induced map $f^*$ to distinguish it from $f.$ I'll also call the dimension $p$ instead of $n.$



          It suffices to show $f^*$ is $C^1$ for matrices with eigenvalues in a given bounded interval $J.$ Approximate $f$ by polynomials $f_n$ such that $sup_xin J|f(x)-f_n(x)|to 0$ and $sup_xin J|f'(x)-f_n'(x)|to 0.$ Since $f_n$ is analytic, $f^*_n$ can be evaluated using resolvents:



          $$f_n^*(X) = frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1 dz$$
          where $C$ is an anticlockwise circle in the complex plane with $J$ in its interior. For $HinmathrmSym(p),$



          beginalign*
          f_n^*(X+H)
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X-H)^-1 dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1+f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1H(z I_p - X)^-1 +dots dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)sum_lambda(z-lambda)^-1P_lambda +f_n(z)sum_lambda_1,lambda_2(z-lambda_1)^-1(z-lambda_2)^-1P_lambda_1HP_lambda_2+dots dz\
          &= f_n^*(X)+sum_lambda_1,lambda_2 P_lambda_1 H P_lambda_2int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda_1+(1-t)lambda_2)+dots dt
          endalign*



          The second equality uses the Taylor expansion $$(A-H)^-1=A^-1+A^-1HA^-1+dots$$ with $A=z I_p-X.$
          The third equality uses $(zI_p - X)^-1=sum_lambda (z-lambda)^-1 P_lambda.$ The fourth equality uses $int_C f_n(z)(z-lambda)^-1(z-mu)^-1dz =int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda+(1-t)mu)dt.$



          This gives a bound



          $$|Df^*_n(X)H| leq c_p|H|cdot sup_xin J|f'_n(x)-f_n'(x)|$$



          for some constant $c_p>0,$ where $|cdot|$ is any matrix norm. This shows that $f^*$ can be approximated arbitrarily well in the $C^1$ norm, which means it's $C^1.$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Excellent! I see how to generalize it to higher derivatives. I am amazed by the speed of your answer :-)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 18:15










          • $begingroup$
            Higher derivative estimates follow from the formula $sum_j=0^kfracf(lambda_j)prod_ellneq j(lambda_j-lambda_ell)=frac1int_Delta_kf^(k)(sum_jt_jlambda_j),dt_0cdots dt_k$, $Delta_k$ being the standard simplex $t_jge 0,sum t_j=1$ (assuming wlog the $lambda_j$'s are distinct).
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago










          • $begingroup$
            The formula, in turn, is easy to prove by induction: we can subtract $f(lambda_0)$ from each numerator in the left-hand side (thanks to this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/104262/…) and obtain $LHS=sum_j=1^kint_0^1fracf'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)lambda_j)prod_ellneq j,ell>0(lambda_j-lambda_ell)$. We are done applying induction with $g:=f'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$ in place of $f(z)$ and noticing $g^(k-1)(z)=(1-t_0)^k-1f^(k)(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago















          9












          $begingroup$

          Yes. The can be derived from the resolvent formalism.



          I'll just do the $C^1$ case and leave higher derivatives as an exercise - ask if it's not clear how to generalize. I am basically using formula (2.7) of "On differentiability of symmetric matrix valued functions", Alexander Shapiro, http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2002/07/499.html. (I think there's a typo in the middle case of the display preceeding (2.7): $f(mu_j)/(mu_j-mu_k)$ should be $(f(mu_j)-f(mu_k))/(mu_j-mu_k).$) Shapiro's paper references "(cf., [4])", where [4] is the 600-page textbook "Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators" by T. Kato, but I don't know if that is helpful for this specific question.



          I will call the induced map $f^*$ to distinguish it from $f.$ I'll also call the dimension $p$ instead of $n.$



          It suffices to show $f^*$ is $C^1$ for matrices with eigenvalues in a given bounded interval $J.$ Approximate $f$ by polynomials $f_n$ such that $sup_xin J|f(x)-f_n(x)|to 0$ and $sup_xin J|f'(x)-f_n'(x)|to 0.$ Since $f_n$ is analytic, $f^*_n$ can be evaluated using resolvents:



          $$f_n^*(X) = frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1 dz$$
          where $C$ is an anticlockwise circle in the complex plane with $J$ in its interior. For $HinmathrmSym(p),$



          beginalign*
          f_n^*(X+H)
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X-H)^-1 dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1+f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1H(z I_p - X)^-1 +dots dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)sum_lambda(z-lambda)^-1P_lambda +f_n(z)sum_lambda_1,lambda_2(z-lambda_1)^-1(z-lambda_2)^-1P_lambda_1HP_lambda_2+dots dz\
          &= f_n^*(X)+sum_lambda_1,lambda_2 P_lambda_1 H P_lambda_2int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda_1+(1-t)lambda_2)+dots dt
          endalign*



          The second equality uses the Taylor expansion $$(A-H)^-1=A^-1+A^-1HA^-1+dots$$ with $A=z I_p-X.$
          The third equality uses $(zI_p - X)^-1=sum_lambda (z-lambda)^-1 P_lambda.$ The fourth equality uses $int_C f_n(z)(z-lambda)^-1(z-mu)^-1dz =int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda+(1-t)mu)dt.$



          This gives a bound



          $$|Df^*_n(X)H| leq c_p|H|cdot sup_xin J|f'_n(x)-f_n'(x)|$$



          for some constant $c_p>0,$ where $|cdot|$ is any matrix norm. This shows that $f^*$ can be approximated arbitrarily well in the $C^1$ norm, which means it's $C^1.$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Excellent! I see how to generalize it to higher derivatives. I am amazed by the speed of your answer :-)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 18:15










          • $begingroup$
            Higher derivative estimates follow from the formula $sum_j=0^kfracf(lambda_j)prod_ellneq j(lambda_j-lambda_ell)=frac1int_Delta_kf^(k)(sum_jt_jlambda_j),dt_0cdots dt_k$, $Delta_k$ being the standard simplex $t_jge 0,sum t_j=1$ (assuming wlog the $lambda_j$'s are distinct).
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago










          • $begingroup$
            The formula, in turn, is easy to prove by induction: we can subtract $f(lambda_0)$ from each numerator in the left-hand side (thanks to this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/104262/…) and obtain $LHS=sum_j=1^kint_0^1fracf'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)lambda_j)prod_ellneq j,ell>0(lambda_j-lambda_ell)$. We are done applying induction with $g:=f'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$ in place of $f(z)$ and noticing $g^(k-1)(z)=(1-t_0)^k-1f^(k)(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago













          9












          9








          9





          $begingroup$

          Yes. The can be derived from the resolvent formalism.



          I'll just do the $C^1$ case and leave higher derivatives as an exercise - ask if it's not clear how to generalize. I am basically using formula (2.7) of "On differentiability of symmetric matrix valued functions", Alexander Shapiro, http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2002/07/499.html. (I think there's a typo in the middle case of the display preceeding (2.7): $f(mu_j)/(mu_j-mu_k)$ should be $(f(mu_j)-f(mu_k))/(mu_j-mu_k).$) Shapiro's paper references "(cf., [4])", where [4] is the 600-page textbook "Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators" by T. Kato, but I don't know if that is helpful for this specific question.



          I will call the induced map $f^*$ to distinguish it from $f.$ I'll also call the dimension $p$ instead of $n.$



          It suffices to show $f^*$ is $C^1$ for matrices with eigenvalues in a given bounded interval $J.$ Approximate $f$ by polynomials $f_n$ such that $sup_xin J|f(x)-f_n(x)|to 0$ and $sup_xin J|f'(x)-f_n'(x)|to 0.$ Since $f_n$ is analytic, $f^*_n$ can be evaluated using resolvents:



          $$f_n^*(X) = frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1 dz$$
          where $C$ is an anticlockwise circle in the complex plane with $J$ in its interior. For $HinmathrmSym(p),$



          beginalign*
          f_n^*(X+H)
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X-H)^-1 dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1+f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1H(z I_p - X)^-1 +dots dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)sum_lambda(z-lambda)^-1P_lambda +f_n(z)sum_lambda_1,lambda_2(z-lambda_1)^-1(z-lambda_2)^-1P_lambda_1HP_lambda_2+dots dz\
          &= f_n^*(X)+sum_lambda_1,lambda_2 P_lambda_1 H P_lambda_2int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda_1+(1-t)lambda_2)+dots dt
          endalign*



          The second equality uses the Taylor expansion $$(A-H)^-1=A^-1+A^-1HA^-1+dots$$ with $A=z I_p-X.$
          The third equality uses $(zI_p - X)^-1=sum_lambda (z-lambda)^-1 P_lambda.$ The fourth equality uses $int_C f_n(z)(z-lambda)^-1(z-mu)^-1dz =int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda+(1-t)mu)dt.$



          This gives a bound



          $$|Df^*_n(X)H| leq c_p|H|cdot sup_xin J|f'_n(x)-f_n'(x)|$$



          for some constant $c_p>0,$ where $|cdot|$ is any matrix norm. This shows that $f^*$ can be approximated arbitrarily well in the $C^1$ norm, which means it's $C^1.$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Yes. The can be derived from the resolvent formalism.



          I'll just do the $C^1$ case and leave higher derivatives as an exercise - ask if it's not clear how to generalize. I am basically using formula (2.7) of "On differentiability of symmetric matrix valued functions", Alexander Shapiro, http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2002/07/499.html. (I think there's a typo in the middle case of the display preceeding (2.7): $f(mu_j)/(mu_j-mu_k)$ should be $(f(mu_j)-f(mu_k))/(mu_j-mu_k).$) Shapiro's paper references "(cf., [4])", where [4] is the 600-page textbook "Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators" by T. Kato, but I don't know if that is helpful for this specific question.



          I will call the induced map $f^*$ to distinguish it from $f.$ I'll also call the dimension $p$ instead of $n.$



          It suffices to show $f^*$ is $C^1$ for matrices with eigenvalues in a given bounded interval $J.$ Approximate $f$ by polynomials $f_n$ such that $sup_xin J|f(x)-f_n(x)|to 0$ and $sup_xin J|f'(x)-f_n'(x)|to 0.$ Since $f_n$ is analytic, $f^*_n$ can be evaluated using resolvents:



          $$f_n^*(X) = frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1 dz$$
          where $C$ is an anticlockwise circle in the complex plane with $J$ in its interior. For $HinmathrmSym(p),$



          beginalign*
          f_n^*(X+H)
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X-H)^-1 dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1+f_n(z)(z I_p - X)^-1H(z I_p - X)^-1 +dots dz\
          &= frac12pi iint_C f_n(z)sum_lambda(z-lambda)^-1P_lambda +f_n(z)sum_lambda_1,lambda_2(z-lambda_1)^-1(z-lambda_2)^-1P_lambda_1HP_lambda_2+dots dz\
          &= f_n^*(X)+sum_lambda_1,lambda_2 P_lambda_1 H P_lambda_2int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda_1+(1-t)lambda_2)+dots dt
          endalign*



          The second equality uses the Taylor expansion $$(A-H)^-1=A^-1+A^-1HA^-1+dots$$ with $A=z I_p-X.$
          The third equality uses $(zI_p - X)^-1=sum_lambda (z-lambda)^-1 P_lambda.$ The fourth equality uses $int_C f_n(z)(z-lambda)^-1(z-mu)^-1dz =int_0^1 f'_n(tlambda+(1-t)mu)dt.$



          This gives a bound



          $$|Df^*_n(X)H| leq c_p|H|cdot sup_xin J|f'_n(x)-f_n'(x)|$$



          for some constant $c_p>0,$ where $|cdot|$ is any matrix norm. This shows that $f^*$ can be approximated arbitrarily well in the $C^1$ norm, which means it's $C^1.$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Apr 6 at 17:25









          DapDap

          94826




          94826







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Excellent! I see how to generalize it to higher derivatives. I am amazed by the speed of your answer :-)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 18:15










          • $begingroup$
            Higher derivative estimates follow from the formula $sum_j=0^kfracf(lambda_j)prod_ellneq j(lambda_j-lambda_ell)=frac1int_Delta_kf^(k)(sum_jt_jlambda_j),dt_0cdots dt_k$, $Delta_k$ being the standard simplex $t_jge 0,sum t_j=1$ (assuming wlog the $lambda_j$'s are distinct).
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago










          • $begingroup$
            The formula, in turn, is easy to prove by induction: we can subtract $f(lambda_0)$ from each numerator in the left-hand side (thanks to this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/104262/…) and obtain $LHS=sum_j=1^kint_0^1fracf'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)lambda_j)prod_ellneq j,ell>0(lambda_j-lambda_ell)$. We are done applying induction with $g:=f'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$ in place of $f(z)$ and noticing $g^(k-1)(z)=(1-t_0)^k-1f^(k)(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Excellent! I see how to generalize it to higher derivatives. I am amazed by the speed of your answer :-)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 18:15










          • $begingroup$
            Higher derivative estimates follow from the formula $sum_j=0^kfracf(lambda_j)prod_ellneq j(lambda_j-lambda_ell)=frac1int_Delta_kf^(k)(sum_jt_jlambda_j),dt_0cdots dt_k$, $Delta_k$ being the standard simplex $t_jge 0,sum t_j=1$ (assuming wlog the $lambda_j$'s are distinct).
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago










          • $begingroup$
            The formula, in turn, is easy to prove by induction: we can subtract $f(lambda_0)$ from each numerator in the left-hand side (thanks to this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/104262/…) and obtain $LHS=sum_j=1^kint_0^1fracf'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)lambda_j)prod_ellneq j,ell>0(lambda_j-lambda_ell)$. We are done applying induction with $g:=f'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$ in place of $f(z)$ and noticing $g^(k-1)(z)=(1-t_0)^k-1f^(k)(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            2 days ago







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Excellent! I see how to generalize it to higher derivatives. I am amazed by the speed of your answer :-)
          $endgroup$
          – Mizar
          Apr 6 at 18:15




          $begingroup$
          Excellent! I see how to generalize it to higher derivatives. I am amazed by the speed of your answer :-)
          $endgroup$
          – Mizar
          Apr 6 at 18:15












          $begingroup$
          Higher derivative estimates follow from the formula $sum_j=0^kfracf(lambda_j)prod_ellneq j(lambda_j-lambda_ell)=frac1int_Delta_kf^(k)(sum_jt_jlambda_j),dt_0cdots dt_k$, $Delta_k$ being the standard simplex $t_jge 0,sum t_j=1$ (assuming wlog the $lambda_j$'s are distinct).
          $endgroup$
          – Mizar
          2 days ago




          $begingroup$
          Higher derivative estimates follow from the formula $sum_j=0^kfracf(lambda_j)prod_ellneq j(lambda_j-lambda_ell)=frac1int_Delta_kf^(k)(sum_jt_jlambda_j),dt_0cdots dt_k$, $Delta_k$ being the standard simplex $t_jge 0,sum t_j=1$ (assuming wlog the $lambda_j$'s are distinct).
          $endgroup$
          – Mizar
          2 days ago












          $begingroup$
          The formula, in turn, is easy to prove by induction: we can subtract $f(lambda_0)$ from each numerator in the left-hand side (thanks to this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/104262/…) and obtain $LHS=sum_j=1^kint_0^1fracf'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)lambda_j)prod_ellneq j,ell>0(lambda_j-lambda_ell)$. We are done applying induction with $g:=f'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$ in place of $f(z)$ and noticing $g^(k-1)(z)=(1-t_0)^k-1f^(k)(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$.
          $endgroup$
          – Mizar
          2 days ago




          $begingroup$
          The formula, in turn, is easy to prove by induction: we can subtract $f(lambda_0)$ from each numerator in the left-hand side (thanks to this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/104262/…) and obtain $LHS=sum_j=1^kint_0^1fracf'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)lambda_j)prod_ellneq j,ell>0(lambda_j-lambda_ell)$. We are done applying induction with $g:=f'(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$ in place of $f(z)$ and noticing $g^(k-1)(z)=(1-t_0)^k-1f^(k)(t_0lambda_0+(1-t_0)z)$.
          $endgroup$
          – Mizar
          2 days ago











          0












          $begingroup$

          Yes. To show that f(A) is n-times differentiable at A=B, simply interpolate f by a polynomial P so that P and its derivatives up to order n agree with f on the spectrum of B. Clearly P(A) is n-times differentiable, and it isn't too much work to show that f and P have the same nth derivative.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, I thought about this strategy, but it's not so clear why this gives $C^n$ regularity rather than just a Taylor approximation of degree $n$ at each $A$. (If one manages to infer such an approximation exists with coefficients depending continuously on $A$, then one could invoke this result: mathoverflow.net/questions/88501/converse-of-taylors-theorem)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 23:00
















          0












          $begingroup$

          Yes. To show that f(A) is n-times differentiable at A=B, simply interpolate f by a polynomial P so that P and its derivatives up to order n agree with f on the spectrum of B. Clearly P(A) is n-times differentiable, and it isn't too much work to show that f and P have the same nth derivative.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, I thought about this strategy, but it's not so clear why this gives $C^n$ regularity rather than just a Taylor approximation of degree $n$ at each $A$. (If one manages to infer such an approximation exists with coefficients depending continuously on $A$, then one could invoke this result: mathoverflow.net/questions/88501/converse-of-taylors-theorem)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 23:00














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          Yes. To show that f(A) is n-times differentiable at A=B, simply interpolate f by a polynomial P so that P and its derivatives up to order n agree with f on the spectrum of B. Clearly P(A) is n-times differentiable, and it isn't too much work to show that f and P have the same nth derivative.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$



          Yes. To show that f(A) is n-times differentiable at A=B, simply interpolate f by a polynomial P so that P and its derivatives up to order n agree with f on the spectrum of B. Clearly P(A) is n-times differentiable, and it isn't too much work to show that f and P have the same nth derivative.







          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer






          New contributor




          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered Apr 6 at 20:36









          B ChinB Chin

          1




          1




          New contributor




          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          B Chin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.











          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, I thought about this strategy, but it's not so clear why this gives $C^n$ regularity rather than just a Taylor approximation of degree $n$ at each $A$. (If one manages to infer such an approximation exists with coefficients depending continuously on $A$, then one could invoke this result: mathoverflow.net/questions/88501/converse-of-taylors-theorem)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 23:00

















          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, I thought about this strategy, but it's not so clear why this gives $C^n$ regularity rather than just a Taylor approximation of degree $n$ at each $A$. (If one manages to infer such an approximation exists with coefficients depending continuously on $A$, then one could invoke this result: mathoverflow.net/questions/88501/converse-of-taylors-theorem)
            $endgroup$
            – Mizar
            Apr 6 at 23:00
















          $begingroup$
          Yeah, I thought about this strategy, but it's not so clear why this gives $C^n$ regularity rather than just a Taylor approximation of degree $n$ at each $A$. (If one manages to infer such an approximation exists with coefficients depending continuously on $A$, then one could invoke this result: mathoverflow.net/questions/88501/converse-of-taylors-theorem)
          $endgroup$
          – Mizar
          Apr 6 at 23:00





          $begingroup$
          Yeah, I thought about this strategy, but it's not so clear why this gives $C^n$ regularity rather than just a Taylor approximation of degree $n$ at each $A$. (If one manages to infer such an approximation exists with coefficients depending continuously on $A$, then one could invoke this result: mathoverflow.net/questions/88501/converse-of-taylors-theorem)
          $endgroup$
          – Mizar
          Apr 6 at 23:00


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327330%2fsmoothness-of-finite-dimensional-functional-calculus%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -fa.functional-analysis, real-analysis, sp.spectral-theory

          Popular posts from this blog

          Frič See also Navigation menuinternal link

          Identify plant with long narrow paired leaves and reddish stems Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What is this plant with long sharp leaves? Is it a weed?What is this 3ft high, stalky plant, with mid sized narrow leaves?What is this young shrub with opposite ovate, crenate leaves and reddish stems?What is this plant with large broad serrated leaves?Identify this upright branching weed with long leaves and reddish stemsPlease help me identify this bulbous plant with long, broad leaves and white flowersWhat is this small annual with narrow gray/green leaves and rust colored daisy-type flowers?What is this chilli plant?Does anyone know what type of chilli plant this is?Help identify this plant

          fontconfig warning: “/etc/fonts/fonts.conf”, line 100: unknown “element blank” The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In“tar: unrecognized option --warning” during 'apt-get install'How to fix Fontconfig errorHow do I figure out which font file is chosen for a system generic font alias?Why are some apt-get-installed fonts being ignored by fc-list, xfontsel, etc?Reload settings in /etc/fonts/conf.dTaking 30 seconds longer to boot after upgrade from jessie to stretchHow to match multiple font names with a single <match> element?Adding a custom font to fontconfigRemoving fonts from fontconfig <match> resultsBroken fonts after upgrading Firefox ESR to latest Firefox