Abstract
By employing a weighted Frobenius norm with a positive matrix ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , we introduce natural generalizations of the famous Böttcher-Wenzel (BW) inequality.
Based on the combination of the weighted Frobenius norm ‖ A ‖ ω := tr ( A ∗ A ω ) assign subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 trace superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 𝜔 \|A\|_{\omega}:=\sqrt{\tr(A^{\ast}A\omega)} ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := square-root start_ARG roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A italic_ω end_ARG ) end_ARG and the standard Frobenius norm ‖ A ‖ := tr ( A ∗ A ) assign norm 𝐴 trace superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 \|A\|:=\sqrt{\tr(A^{\ast}A)} ∥ italic_A ∥ := square-root start_ARG roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_ARG ) end_ARG , there are exactly five possible generalizations, labeled (i) through (v), for the bounds on the norms of the commutator [ A , B ] := A B − B A assign 𝐴 𝐵 𝐴 𝐵 𝐵 𝐴 [A,B]:=AB-BA [ italic_A , italic_B ] := italic_A italic_B - italic_B italic_A .
In this paper, we establish the tight bounds for cases (iii) and (v), and propose conjectures regarding the tight bounds for cases (i) and (ii). Additionally, the tight bound for case (iv) is derived as a corollary of case (i).
All these bounds (i)-(v) serve as generalizations of the BW inequality.
The conjectured bounds for cases (i) and (ii) (and thus also (iv)) are numerically supported for matrices up to size n = 15 𝑛 15 n=15 italic_n = 15 .
Proofs are provided for n = 2 𝑛 2 n=2 italic_n = 2 and certain special cases.
Interestingly, we find applications of these bounds in quantum physics, particularly in the contexts of the uncertainty relation and open quantum dynamics.
1 Introduction
The seminal Böttcher-Wenzel (BW) inequality [1 , 2 , 3 ] provides the bound of the norm of the commutator [ A , B ] := A B − B A assign 𝐴 𝐵 𝐴 𝐵 𝐵 𝐴 [A,B]:=AB-BA [ italic_A , italic_B ] := italic_A italic_B - italic_B italic_A of n × n 𝑛 𝑛 n\times n italic_n × italic_n complex matrices A , B ∈ M n ( ℂ ) 𝐴 𝐵
subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ A,B\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits) italic_A , italic_B ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) in the form
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ≤ 2 ‖ A ‖ ‖ B ‖ , norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 norm 𝐴 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|\leq\sqrt{2}\|A\|\|B\|, ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ ≤ square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ ∥ italic_B ∥ ,
(1)
where ‖ A ‖ := tr ( A ∗ A ) assign norm 𝐴 trace superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 \|A\|:=\sqrt{\tr(A^{\ast}A)} ∥ italic_A ∥ := square-root start_ARG roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_ARG ) end_ARG is the Frobenius norm.
Here tr A trace 𝐴 \tr A roman_tr italic_A and A ∗ superscript 𝐴 ∗ A^{\ast} italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are the trace and the Hermitian conjugate of the matrix A 𝐴 A italic_A , respectively. The bound (1 ) is tight in the sense that there exist non-zero matrices A , B 𝐴 𝐵
A,B italic_A , italic_B that attain the equality.
This inequality was then generalized in several directions, e.g., with Schatten p 𝑝 p italic_p -norm, Ky Fan ( p , k ) 𝑝 𝑘 (p,k) ( italic_p , italic_k ) norm [4 , 5 , 6 ] , or with the q 𝑞 q italic_q -deformed commutator [7 , 8 ] .
In this paper we consider generalizations of BW inequality by replacing the Frobenius norm defined in terms of the Hilbert Schmidt inner product ⟨ A | B ⟩ := tr ( A ∗ B ) assign inner-product 𝐴 𝐵 trace superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐵 \langle A|B\rangle:=\tr(A^{\ast}B) ⟨ italic_A | italic_B ⟩ := roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_ARG ) , i.e. ‖ A ‖ 2 = ⟨ A | A ⟩ superscript norm 𝐴 2 inner-product 𝐴 𝐴 \|A\|^{2}=\langle A|A\rangle ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_A | italic_A ⟩ , by ‖ A ‖ ω 2 := ⟨ A | A ⟩ ω assign superscript subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 2 subscript inner-product 𝐴 𝐴 𝜔 \|A\|_{\omega}^{2}:=\langle A|A\rangle_{\omega} ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := ⟨ italic_A | italic_A ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , where the new inner product is defined as follows ⟨ A | B ⟩ ω := tr ( A ∗ B ω ) assign subscript inner-product 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 trace superscript 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 \langle A|B\rangle_{\omega}:=\tr(A^{*}B\omega) ⟨ italic_A | italic_B ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B italic_ω end_ARG ) and ω ∈ M n ( ℂ ) 𝜔 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ \omega\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits) italic_ω ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) is a positive (definite) matrix. In what follows we call ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -weighted Frobenius norm
‖ A ‖ ω := tr ( A ∗ A ω ) assign subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 trace superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 𝜔 \|A\|_{\omega}:=\sqrt{\tr(A^{\ast}A\omega)} ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := square-root start_ARG roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A italic_ω end_ARG ) end_ARG
(2)
the ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -norm . The ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -norm satisfies the axioms of the norm and provides a generalization of the Frobenius norm when ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω is the identity matrix 𝕀 𝕀 \mathop{\mathbb{I}}\nolimits blackboard_I . In the following discussion, ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω is always assumed to be a positive matrix.
Depending on the combinations of the ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -norm and the Frobenius norm, there are exactly six types of bounds to be considered, including the BW inequality itself: For positive constants c i ( ω ) ( i = 1 , … , 6 ) subscript 𝑐 𝑖 𝜔 𝑖 1 … 6
c_{i}(\omega)\ (i=1,\ldots,6) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ( italic_i = 1 , … , 6 ) , dependent on ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , it holds that, for any A , B ∈ M n ( ℂ ) 𝐴 𝐵
subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ A,B\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits) italic_A , italic_B ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) ,
( i ) i \displaystyle\rm{(i)}\ ( roman_i )
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|_{\omega} ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
≤ c 1 ( ω ) ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ ω , absent subscript 𝑐 1 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle\leq c_{1}(\omega)\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|_{\omega}, ≤ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(\theparentequation i)
( ii ) ii \displaystyle\rm{(ii)}\ ( roman_ii )
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|_{\omega} ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
≤ c 2 ( ω ) ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ , absent subscript 𝑐 2 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle\leq c_{2}(\omega)\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|, ≤ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ ,
(\theparentequation ii)
( iii ) iii \displaystyle\rm{(iii)}\ ( roman_iii )
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|_{\omega} ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
≤ c 3 ( ω ) ‖ A ‖ ‖ B ‖ , absent subscript 𝑐 3 𝜔 norm 𝐴 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle\leq c_{3}(\omega)\|A\|\|B\|, ≤ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ∥ italic_A ∥ ∥ italic_B ∥ ,
(\theparentequation iii)
( iv ) iv \displaystyle\rm{(iv)}\ ( roman_iv )
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ norm 𝐴 𝐵 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\| ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥
≤ c 4 ( ω ) ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ ω , absent subscript 𝑐 4 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle\leq c_{4}(\omega)\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|_{\omega}, ≤ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(\theparentequation iv)
( v ) v \displaystyle\rm{(v)}\ ( roman_v )
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ norm 𝐴 𝐵 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\| ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥
≤ c 5 ( ω ) ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ , absent subscript 𝑐 5 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle\leq c_{5}(\omega)\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|, ≤ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ ,
(\theparentequation v)
( vi ) vi \displaystyle\rm{(vi)}\ ( roman_vi )
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ norm 𝐴 𝐵 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\| ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥
≤ c 6 ( ω ) ‖ A ‖ ‖ B ‖ . absent subscript 𝑐 6 𝜔 norm 𝐴 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle\leq c_{6}(\omega)\|A\|\|B\|. ≤ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ∥ italic_A ∥ ∥ italic_B ∥ .
(\theparentequation vi)
In particular, we are interested in the tightest bounds c i ~ ( ω ) ( i = 1 , … , 6 ) ~ subscript 𝑐 𝑖 𝜔 𝑖 1 … 6
\tilde{c_{i}}(\omega)\ (i=1,\ldots,6) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) ( italic_i = 1 , … , 6 ) , which are the minimum values of c i ( ω ) subscript 𝑐 𝑖 𝜔 c_{i}(\omega) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) (i = 1 , … , 6 𝑖 1 … 6
i=1,\ldots,6 italic_i = 1 , … , 6 ) for which each inequality in Eqs. (3 ) is satisfied.
Alternatively, c i ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 𝑖 𝜔 \tilde{c_{i}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) can be characterized by the following optimization problems:
c 1 ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 1 𝜔 \displaystyle\tilde{c_{1}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω )
= max A , B ≠ 0 ∈ M n ( ℂ ) ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ ω , absent subscript 𝐴 𝐵
0 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle=\max_{A,B\neq 0\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits)}\frac{\|[%
A,B]\|_{\omega}}{\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|_{\omega}}, = roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A , italic_B ≠ 0 ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ,
(\theparentequation i)
c 2 ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 2 𝜔 \displaystyle\tilde{c_{2}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω )
= max A , B ≠ 0 ∈ M n ( ℂ ) ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ , absent subscript 𝐴 𝐵
0 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle=\max_{A,B\neq 0\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits)}\frac{\|[%
A,B]\|_{\omega}}{\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|}, = roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A , italic_B ≠ 0 ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ end_ARG ,
(\theparentequation ii)
c 3 ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 3 𝜔 \displaystyle\tilde{c_{3}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω )
= max A , B ≠ 0 ∈ M n ( ℂ ) ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω ‖ A ‖ ‖ B ‖ , absent subscript 𝐴 𝐵
0 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 norm 𝐴 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle=\max_{A,B\neq 0\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits)}\frac{\|[%
A,B]\|_{\omega}}{\|A\|\|B\|}, = roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A , italic_B ≠ 0 ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ ∥ italic_B ∥ end_ARG ,
(\theparentequation iii)
c 4 ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 4 𝜔 \displaystyle\tilde{c_{4}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω )
= max A , B ≠ 0 ∈ M n ( ℂ ) ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ ω , absent subscript 𝐴 𝐵
0 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ norm 𝐴 𝐵 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle=\max_{A,B\neq 0\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits)}\frac{\|[%
A,B]\|}{\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|_{\omega}}, = roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A , italic_B ≠ 0 ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ,
(\theparentequation iv)
c 5 ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 5 𝜔 \displaystyle\tilde{c_{5}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω )
= max A , B ≠ 0 ∈ M n ( ℂ ) ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ , absent subscript 𝐴 𝐵
0 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ norm 𝐴 𝐵 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle=\max_{A,B\neq 0\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits)}\frac{\|[%
A,B]\|}{\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|}, = roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A , italic_B ≠ 0 ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ end_ARG ,
(\theparentequation v)
c 6 ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 6 𝜔 \displaystyle\tilde{c_{6}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω )
= max A , B ≠ 0 ∈ M n ( ℂ ) ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ‖ A ‖ ‖ B ‖ . absent subscript 𝐴 𝐵
0 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ norm 𝐴 𝐵 norm 𝐴 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle=\max_{A,B\neq 0\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits)}\frac{\|[%
A,B]\|}{\|A\|\|B\|}. = roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A , italic_B ≠ 0 ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ ∥ italic_B ∥ end_ARG .
(\theparentequation vi)
Note that, given inequalities (3 ), the tightness can be also shown by providing non-zero matrices A , B 𝐴 𝐵
A,B italic_A , italic_B such that the equalities are attained.
We remark that type (vi) corresponds to BW bound (1 ), so that we already know
c 6 ~ ( ω ) = 2 . ~ subscript 𝑐 6 𝜔 2 \displaystyle\tilde{c_{6}}(\omega)=\sqrt{2}. over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG .
(5)
In this paper, we first show that the tight bounds for cases (iii) and (v) are give by
c 3 ~ ( ω ) = 2 λ M , c 5 ~ ( ω ) = 2 λ m , formulae-sequence ~ subscript 𝑐 3 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 M ~ subscript 𝑐 5 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 m \displaystyle\tilde{c_{3}}(\omega)=\sqrt{2\lambda_{\rm M}},\ \tilde{c_{5}}(%
\omega)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\lambda_{\rm m}}}, over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ,
(6)
where λ M subscript 𝜆 M \lambda_{\rm M} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and λ m subscript 𝜆 m \lambda_{\rm m} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the largest and the smallest eigenvalues of ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω .
Second, we give conjectures for cases (i) and (ii) that the tight bounds are given respectively by
c 1 ~ ( ω ) = λ m + λ sm λ m λ sm ~ subscript 𝑐 1 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm \displaystyle\tilde{c_{1}}(\omega)=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm sm%
}}{\lambda_{\rm m}\lambda_{\rm sm}}} over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG
(7)
and
c 2 ~ ( ω ) = λ m + λ M λ m , ~ subscript 𝑐 2 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m \displaystyle\tilde{c_{2}}(\omega)=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm M}%
}{\lambda_{\rm m}}}, over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ,
(8)
where λ sm subscript 𝜆 sm \lambda_{\rm sm} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the second smallest eigenvalue of ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω .
Third, the tight bound for case (iv) is then given, as a corollary of conjecture (7 ), by
c 4 ~ ( ω ) = λ m + λ sm λ m 2 λ sm . ~ subscript 𝑐 4 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm superscript subscript 𝜆 m 2 subscript 𝜆 sm \displaystyle\tilde{c_{4}}(\omega)=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm sm%
}}{\lambda_{\rm m}^{2}\lambda_{\rm sm}}}. over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG .
(9)
Note that all these tight bounds for cases (i)-(v) generalize the BW inequality by setting ω = 𝕀 𝜔 𝕀 \omega=\mathop{\mathbb{I}}\nolimits italic_ω = blackboard_I , since the eigenvalues of 𝕀 𝕀 \mathop{\mathbb{I}}\nolimits blackboard_I are all 1, allowing (6 ), (7 ), (8 ), and (9 ) to recover the BW bound (5 ).
To summarize, the logical relations between the tight bounds for cases (i)-(vi) are as follows:
In this regard, it becomes evidence that the verification of conjectures (i) and (ii) holds considerable importance.
Furthermore, besides the intrinsic mathematical interest in the norm bounds of the commutator, we find that there are direct applications of both (i) and (ii) in the filed of quantum physics.
By applying a quantum state, i.e., a density operator as ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , we demonstrate that the conjectured bounds for type (i) and type (ii) respectively introduce a novel uncertainty relation between observables A 𝐴 A italic_A and B 𝐵 B italic_B , and impose a non-trivial constraint on relaxation rates in the general quantum Markovian dynamics.
In the following discussion, we will frequently use the Dirac notation, as commonly used in the field of quantum physics: a vector in ℂ n superscript ℂ 𝑛 \mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits^{n} blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is denoted by a ket vector, e.g., | ψ ⟩ ket 𝜓 \ket{\psi} | start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG ⟩ ;
For vectors | ψ ⟩ = ( x i ) i = 1 n , | ϕ ⟩ = ( y i ) i = 1 n ∈ ℂ n formulae-sequence ket 𝜓 superscript subscript subscript 𝑥 𝑖 𝑖 1 𝑛 ket italic-ϕ superscript subscript subscript 𝑦 𝑖 𝑖 1 𝑛 superscript ℂ 𝑛 \ket{\psi}=(x_{i})_{i=1}^{n},\ket{\phi}=(y_{i})_{i=1}^{n}\in\mathop{\mathbb{C}%
}\nolimits^{n} | start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG ⟩ = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , | start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG ⟩ = ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , the symbol ⟨ ψ | ϕ ⟩ := ∑ i x i ¯ y i assign inner-product 𝜓 italic-ϕ subscript 𝑖 ¯ subscript 𝑥 𝑖 subscript 𝑦 𝑖 \langle\psi|\phi\rangle:=\sum_{i}\overline{x_{i}}y_{i} ⟨ italic_ψ | italic_ϕ ⟩ := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the (complex Euclidean) inner product, while the symbol | ψ ⟩ ⟨ ϕ | := [ x i y ¯ j ] i , j assign 𝜓 italic-ϕ subscript delimited-[] subscript 𝑥 𝑖 subscript ¯ 𝑦 𝑗 𝑖 𝑗
\outerproduct{\psi}{\phi}:=[x_{i}\overline{y}_{j}]_{i,j} | start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG | := [ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the matrix in M n ( ℂ ) subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits) italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) such that its action to a vector is given by: | ψ ⟩ ⟨ ϕ | | ξ ⟩ = ⟨ ϕ | ξ ⟩ | ψ ⟩ 𝜓 italic-ϕ ket 𝜉 inner-product italic-ϕ 𝜉 ket 𝜓 \outerproduct{\psi}{\phi}\ket{\xi}=\langle\phi|\xi\rangle\ket{\psi} | start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG | | start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG ⟩ = ⟨ italic_ϕ | italic_ξ ⟩ | start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG ⟩ .
The structure of this paper is as follows: In Sec. 2 (and also in Appendix), we explore several generalizations of the BW inequality, each characterized by a combination of the ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -norm and the Frobenius norm. Sec. 3 demonstrates the practical applications of our conjectures within the realm of quantum physics. The paper concludes with Sec. 4 .
2 Six types of bounds of the commutators with respect to ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -norm
To derive bounds for types (i) through (v) in (3 ), we start with a simple observation about the relationship between the ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -norm and the Frobenius norm. In what follows, we denote by λ i > 0 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 0 \lambda_{i}>0 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 ( i = 1 , … , n ) 𝑖 1 … 𝑛
(i=1,\ldots,n) ( italic_i = 1 , … , italic_n ) the eigenvalues of a positive matrix ω ∈ M n ( ℂ ) 𝜔 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ \omega\in M_{n}(\mathbb{C}) italic_ω ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) , arranged in ascending order: λ 1 ≤ λ 2 ≤ ⋯ ≤ λ n subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 ⋯ subscript 𝜆 𝑛 \lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_{n} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ⋯ ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , so that
λ m = λ 1 , λ sm = λ 2 and λ M = λ n . formulae-sequence subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 2 and subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 𝑛 \lambda_{\rm m}=\lambda_{1},\lambda_{\rm sm}=\lambda_{2}\ {\rm and}\ \lambda_{%
\rm M}=\lambda_{n}. italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_and italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
The corresponding unit eigenvectors are denoted by | λ i ⟩ ket subscript 𝜆 𝑖 \ket{\lambda_{i}} | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ( i = 1 , … , n ) 𝑖 1 … 𝑛
(i=1,\ldots,n) ( italic_i = 1 , … , italic_n ) , i.e., ω | λ i ⟩ = λ i | λ i ⟩ 𝜔 ket subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 ket subscript 𝜆 𝑖 \omega\ket{\lambda_{i}}=\lambda_{i}\ket{\lambda_{i}} italic_ω | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ and ⟨ λ i | λ i ⟩ = 1 inner-product subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 1 \langle\lambda_{i}|\lambda_{i}\rangle=1 ⟨ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = 1 .
Considering the expressions ‖ A ‖ ω 2 = tr ( A ∗ A ω ) = ∑ i = 1 n λ i ⟨ λ i | A ∗ A λ i ⟩ subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 trace superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 𝜔 superscript subscript 𝑖 1 𝑛 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 inner-product subscript 𝜆 𝑖 superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 \|A\|^{2}_{\omega}=\tr(A^{\ast}A\omega)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}\langle%
\lambda_{i}|A^{\ast}A\lambda_{i}\rangle ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A italic_ω end_ARG ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ and ‖ A ‖ 2 = tr ( A ∗ A ) = ∑ i = 1 n ⟨ λ i | A ∗ A λ i ⟩ superscript norm 𝐴 2 trace superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 superscript subscript 𝑖 1 𝑛 inner-product subscript 𝜆 𝑖 superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 \|A\|^{2}=\tr(A^{\ast}A)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\langle\lambda_{i}|A^{\ast}A\lambda_{i}\rangle ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_ARG ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , it follows that
λ m ‖ A ‖ 2 ≤ ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ≤ λ M ‖ A ‖ 2 . subscript 𝜆 m superscript norm 𝐴 2 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 M superscript norm 𝐴 2 \displaystyle\lambda_{\rm m}\|A\|^{2}\leq\|A\|^{2}_{\omega}\leq\lambda_{\rm M}%
\|A\|^{2}. italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
(10)
By utilizing these inequalities, we derive that
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 ≤ λ M ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ 2 ≤ 2 λ M ‖ A ‖ 2 ‖ B ‖ 2 ≤ 2 λ M λ m ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ‖ B ‖ 2 ≤ 2 λ M λ m 2 ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ‖ B ‖ ω 2 , superscript subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 M superscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 2 subscript 𝜆 M superscript norm 𝐴 2 superscript norm 𝐵 2 2 subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m superscript subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 2 superscript norm 𝐵 2 2 subscript 𝜆 M superscript subscript 𝜆 m 2 superscript subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 2 superscript subscript norm 𝐵 𝜔 2 \|[A,B]\|_{\omega}^{2}\leq\lambda_{\rm M}\|[A,B]\|^{2}\leq 2\lambda_{\rm M}\|A%
\|^{2}\|B\|^{2}\leq\frac{2\lambda_{\rm M}}{\lambda_{\rm m}}\|A\|_{\omega}^{2}%
\|B\|^{2}\leq\frac{2\lambda_{\rm M}}{\lambda_{\rm m}^{2}}\|A\|_{\omega}^{2}\|B%
\|_{\omega}^{2}, ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
where we have used the BW inequality (1 ) to estimate the second inequality.
Now the inequalities clearly imply bounds (i)-(v) in (3 ) for
c 1 ( ω ) = 2 λ M λ m , c 2 ( ω ) = 2 λ M λ m , c 3 ( ω ) = 2 λ M , c 4 ( ω ) = 2 λ m , c 5 ( ω ) = 2 λ m . formulae-sequence subscript 𝑐 1 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m formulae-sequence subscript 𝑐 2 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m formulae-sequence subscript 𝑐 3 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 M formulae-sequence subscript 𝑐 4 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝑐 5 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 m \displaystyle c_{1}(\omega)=\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda_{\rm M}}}{\lambda_{\rm m}},c_%
{2}(\omega)=\sqrt{\frac{2\lambda_{\rm M}}{\lambda_{\rm m}}},c_{3}(\omega)=%
\sqrt{2\lambda_{\rm M}},c_{4}(\omega)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\lambda_{\rm m}},c_{5}(%
\omega)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\lambda_{\rm m}}}. italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) = divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) = divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) = square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG .
(11)
It turns out that this simple observation yields the tight bounds for cases (iii) and (v), since there are non-zero matrices A , B 𝐴 𝐵
A,B italic_A , italic_B that attain the equalities of (\theparentequation iii ) and (\theparentequation v ) with c 3 ( ω ) subscript 𝑐 3 𝜔 c_{3}(\omega) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) and c 5 ( ω ) subscript 𝑐 5 𝜔 c_{5}(\omega) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) in (11 ).
Examples of such matrices include, for instance, A = | λ 1 ⟩ ⟨ λ n | 𝐴 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 A=\outerproduct{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{n}} italic_A = | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | and B = 1 2 ( | λ n ⟩ ⟨ λ n | − | λ 1 ⟩ ⟨ λ 1 | ) 𝐵 1 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 1 B=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\outerproduct{\lambda_{n}}{\lambda_{n}}-\outerproduct{%
\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{1}}) italic_B = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG ( | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | - | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | ) for (\theparentequation iii ) and A = | λ n ⟩ ⟨ λ 1 | 𝐴 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝜆 1 A=\outerproduct{\lambda_{n}}{\lambda_{1}} italic_A = | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | and B = | λ 1 ⟩ ⟨ λ n | 𝐵 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 B=\outerproduct{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{n}} italic_B = | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | for (\theparentequation v ).
Put differently, we have shown the following:
Proposition 1
Let ω ∈ M n ( ℂ ) 𝜔 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ \omega\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits) italic_ω ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) be a positive matrix. For any matrices A , B ∈ M n ( ℂ ) 𝐴 𝐵
subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ A,B\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits) italic_A , italic_B ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) ,
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω ≤ 2 λ M ‖ A ‖ ‖ B ‖ subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 M norm 𝐴 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|_{\omega}\leq\sqrt{2\lambda_{\rm M}}\|A\|\|B\| ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ square-root start_ARG 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ ∥ italic_B ∥
(12)
and
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ≤ 2 λ m ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ , norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 subscript 𝜆 m subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|\leq\sqrt{\frac{2}{\lambda_{\rm m}}}\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|, ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ ≤ square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ ,
(13)
where λ M , λ m subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m
\lambda_{\rm M},\lambda_{\rm m} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the largest and the smallest eigenvalues of ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω . Both bounds are tight, i.e., there are non-zero matrices A 𝐴 A italic_A and B 𝐵 B italic_B that attain the equalities.
Meanwhile, we have conducted numerical optimizations of (4 ) for cases (i), (ii), and (iv), and the results suggest that the bounds c 1 ( ω ) , c 2 ( ω ) subscript 𝑐 1 𝜔 subscript 𝑐 2 𝜔
c_{1}(\omega),c_{2}(\omega) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) and c 4 ( ω ) subscript 𝑐 4 𝜔 c_{4}(\omega) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) in (11 ) are not tight (See dashed lines in Fig. 1 ).
Instead, we conjecture for the tight bounds as specified in (7 ), (8 ), and (9 ).
In other words, our conjectures for cases (i), (ii) and (iv) read:
Conjecture 1
For any matrices A , B ∈ M n ( ℂ ) 𝐴 𝐵
subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ A,B\in M_{n}(\mathop{\mathbb{C}}\nolimits) italic_A , italic_B ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) ,
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω ≤ λ m + λ sm λ m λ sm ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ ω , subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|_{\omega}\leq\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm sm%
}}{\lambda_{\rm m}\lambda_{\rm sm}}}\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|_{\omega}, ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(14)
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω ≤ λ m + λ M λ m ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ , subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 norm 𝐵 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|_{\omega}\leq\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm M}%
}{\lambda_{\rm m}}}\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|, ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ ,
(15)
and (as a corollary of (14 ))
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ≤ λ m + λ sm λ m 2 λ sm ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ ω . norm 𝐴 𝐵 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm superscript subscript 𝜆 m 2 subscript 𝜆 sm subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 subscript norm 𝐵 𝜔 \displaystyle\|[A,B]\|\leq\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm sm}}{%
\lambda_{\rm m}^{2}\lambda_{\rm sm}}}\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\|_{\omega}. ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ ≤ square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
(16)
All bounds are tight, i.e., there are non-zero matrices A 𝐴 A italic_A and B 𝐵 B italic_B that attain the equalities.
Some remarks are in order: First, these conjectures are strongly supported by numerical evidence: For randomly generated positive matrices ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , we have confirmed that numerical optimizations of (4 ) for cases (i), (ii), and (iv) perfectly match the conjectured bounds (7 ), (8 ), and (9 ) up to size n = 15 𝑛 15 n=15 italic_n = 15 . For illustration, consider a one parameterized matrix
ω ( p ) = diag [ sin ( 2 p ) , sin ( 2 p 2 ) , sin ( 2 p 3 ) , sin ( 2 p 4 ) , sin ( 2 p 5 ) ] ∈ M 5 ( ℂ ) 𝜔 𝑝 diag 2 𝑝 2 superscript 𝑝 2 2 superscript 𝑝 3 2 superscript 𝑝 4 2 superscript 𝑝 5
subscript 𝑀 5 ℂ \omega(p)=\text{diag}[\sin(2p),\sin(2p^{2}),\sin(2p^{3}),\sin(2p^{4}),\sin(2p^%
{5})]\in M_{5}(\mathbb{C}) italic_ω ( italic_p ) = diag [ roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p end_ARG ) , roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) , roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) , roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) , roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ] ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C )
with parameter p ∈ ( 0 , 1 ] 𝑝 0 1 p\in(0,1] italic_p ∈ ( 0 , 1 ] as a positive matrix ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω . (This matrix is just one example of ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , but note that due to the positivity of ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , it can always be diagonalized, so considering ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω as a diagonal matrix does not result in any loss of generality.) Figure 1 illustrates the comparisons between numerical optimizations (dotted points, red in the online version) and the conjectured bounds (solid lines), as well as the loose bounds (dashed lines) given in (11 ).
Figure 1: As an illustration, using for a 5 × 5 5 5 5\times 5 5 × 5 positive matrix ω ( p ) = diag [ sin ( 2 p ) , sin ( 2 p 2 ) , sin ( 2 p 3 ) , sin ( 2 p 4 ) , sin ( 2 p 5 ) ] 𝜔 𝑝 diag 2 𝑝 2 superscript 𝑝 2 2 superscript 𝑝 3 2 superscript 𝑝 4 2 superscript 𝑝 5
\omega(p)={\rm diag}[\sin(2p),\sin(2p^{2}),\sin(2p^{3}),\sin(2p^{4}),\sin(2p^{%
5})] italic_ω ( italic_p ) = roman_diag [ roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p end_ARG ) , roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) , roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) , roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) , roman_sin ( start_ARG 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ] for p ∈ ( 0 , 1 ] 𝑝 0 1 p\in(0,1] italic_p ∈ ( 0 , 1 ] , we compare numerical optimizations (dotted points/red online) with our conjectures.
In graphs (i), (ii), (iv), conjectured bounds (7 ), (8 ), and (9 ) are plotted with solid lines, while bounds given in (11 ) are plotted with dashed lines. For references, in graphs (iii) and (v), the tight bounds given in (11 ) are plotted with dashed lines.
Second, one can find non-zero matrices A , B 𝐴 𝐵
A,B italic_A , italic_B that attain equalities in (14 ), (15 ), and (16 ):
For type (i), let, for instance, A = | λ m ⟩ ⟨ λ sm | 𝐴 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm A=\outerproduct{\lambda_{\rm m}}{\lambda_{\rm sm}} italic_A = | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | and B = A ∗ 𝐵 superscript 𝐴 ∗ B=A^{\ast} italic_B = italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Then, it holds that ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 = λ m + λ sm , ‖ A ‖ ω 2 = λ sm , ‖ B ‖ ω 2 = λ m formulae-sequence subscript superscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm formulae-sequence subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 sm subscript superscript norm 𝐵 2 𝜔 subscript 𝜆 m \|[A,B]\|^{2}_{\omega}=\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm sm},\|A\|^{2}_{\omega}=%
\lambda_{\rm sm},\|B\|^{2}_{\omega}=\lambda_{\rm m} ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the equality in (14 ) is attained. Similarly, attainability can be shown by setting, for type (ii), A = | λ M ⟩ ⟨ λ m | 𝐴 subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m A=\outerproduct{\lambda_{\rm M}}{\lambda_{\rm m}} italic_A = | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | , B = A ∗ 𝐵 superscript 𝐴 ∗ B=A^{\ast} italic_B = italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , and for type (iv), A = λ m | λ sm ⟩ ⟨ λ sm | − λ sm | λ m ⟩ ⟨ λ m | , B = | λ sm ⟩ ⟨ λ m | formulae-sequence 𝐴 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 m 𝐵 subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 m A=\lambda_{\rm m}\outerproduct{\lambda_{\rm sm}}{\lambda_{\rm sm}}-\lambda_{%
\rm sm}\outerproduct{\lambda_{\rm m}}{\lambda_{\rm m}},B=\outerproduct{\lambda%
_{\rm sm}}{\lambda_{\rm m}} italic_A = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | , italic_B = | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | , respectively.
These facts imply that the proofs of the part concerning the tightness of the bounds are complete.
Third, (16 ) can be obtained as a corollary of (14 ) by using the left inequality in (10 ) for the commutator part.
Forth, we provide proofs of the conjectures for some special cases (see A ); At the end of this section, we give proofs for case n = 2 𝑛 2 n=2 italic_n = 2 .
Last but not least, we emphasize that the forms of our conjectures are far from trivial. For instance, the fact that the tight bounds depend solely on the eigenvalues of ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , and more specifically, on its largest, smallest, or second smallest eigenvalues, as presented in forms (7 ), (8 ), (9 ), was completely beyond our initial expectations. We arrived at these conjectured forms only after conducting numerous numerical experiments and trials.
2.1 Proofs of Conjecture 1 for n = 2 𝑛 2 n=2 italic_n = 2
Here we prove inequalities (14 ) and (15 ), hence Conjecture 1 , for the case n = 2 𝑛 2 n=2 italic_n = 2 .
Before addressing the specific case of n = 2 𝑛 2 n=2 italic_n = 2 , we begin with several general observations applicable to matrices of any size n 𝑛 n italic_n .
First, in order to prove the conjecture for types (i) and (ii) (indeed also for all other cases), we note that, without loss of generality, ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω can be assumed to be a diagonal matrix with unit trace.
This follows from the facts that, for any unitary matrix U 𝑈 U italic_U , ‖ U A U ∗ ‖ U ω U ∗ = ‖ A ‖ ω subscript norm 𝑈 𝐴 superscript 𝑈 ∗ 𝑈 𝜔 superscript 𝑈 ∗ subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 \|UAU^{\ast}\|_{U\omega U^{\ast}}=\|A\|_{\omega} ∥ italic_U italic_A italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U italic_ω italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (thus ‖ U A U ∗ ‖ = ‖ A ‖ norm 𝑈 𝐴 superscript 𝑈 ∗ norm 𝐴 \|UAU^{\ast}\|=\|A\| ∥ italic_U italic_A italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ = ∥ italic_A ∥ ) and [ U A U ∗ , U B U ∗ ] = U [ A , B ] U ∗ 𝑈 𝐴 superscript 𝑈 ∗ 𝑈 𝐵 superscript 𝑈 ∗ 𝑈 𝐴 𝐵 superscript 𝑈 ∗ [UAU^{\ast},UBU^{\ast}]=U[A,B]U^{\ast} [ italic_U italic_A italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_U italic_B italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_U [ italic_A , italic_B ] italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Moreover, for any positive constant p 𝑝 p italic_p , ‖ A ‖ p ω = p ‖ A ‖ ω subscript norm 𝐴 𝑝 𝜔 𝑝 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 \|A\|_{p\omega}=\sqrt{p}\|A\|_{\omega} ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , and therefore p c 1 ~ ( p ω ) = c 1 ~ ( ω ) 𝑝 ~ subscript 𝑐 1 𝑝 𝜔 ~ subscript 𝑐 1 𝜔 \sqrt{p}\tilde{c_{1}}(p\omega)=\tilde{c_{1}}(\omega) square-root start_ARG italic_p end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_p italic_ω ) = over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) and c 2 ~ ( p ω ) = c 2 ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 2 𝑝 𝜔 ~ subscript 𝑐 2 𝜔 \tilde{c_{2}}(p\omega)=\tilde{c_{2}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_p italic_ω ) = over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) for (7 ) and (8 ).
Note that these are also true for (\theparentequation i ) and (\theparentequation ii ).
Second, note that M n ( ℂ ) subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ M_{n}(\mathbb{C}) italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) constitutes an inner product space with respect to the ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -inner product, defined as ⟨ A | B ⟩ ω := tr ( A ∗ B ω ) assign subscript inner-product 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 trace superscript 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 \langle A|B\rangle_{\omega}:=\tr(A^{*}B\omega) ⟨ italic_A | italic_B ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B italic_ω end_ARG ) , where the ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω -norm is induced from it. As the identity matrix is a unit vector if ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω has a unit trace, we have
‖ A ‖ ω 2 ≥ ‖ A − ⟨ I | A ⟩ ω I ‖ ω 2 = ‖ A − tr ( A ω ) I ‖ ω 2 . subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 subscript inner-product 𝐼 𝐴 𝜔 𝐼 2 𝜔 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 trace 𝐴 𝜔 𝐼 2 𝜔 \displaystyle\|A\|^{2}_{\omega}\geq\|A-\langle I|A\rangle_{\omega}I\|^{2}_{%
\omega}=\|A-\tr(A\omega)I\|^{2}_{\omega}. ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ ∥ italic_A - ⟨ italic_I | italic_A ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_A - roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A italic_ω end_ARG ) italic_I ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
(17)
Applying ω = 𝕀 / n 𝜔 𝕀 𝑛 \omega=\mathop{\mathbb{I}}\nolimits/n italic_ω = blackboard_I / italic_n , we also have
‖ A ‖ 2 ≥ ‖ A − tr ( A ) n I ‖ 2 . superscript norm 𝐴 2 superscript norm 𝐴 trace 𝐴 𝑛 𝐼 2 \displaystyle\|A\|^{2}\geq\|A-\frac{\tr(A)}{n}I\|^{2}. ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ ∥ italic_A - divide start_ARG roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG italic_I ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
(18)
Considering these observations, we now proceed to prove (14 ) and (15 ) in the case where n = 2 𝑛 2 n=2 italic_n = 2 .
In what follows, let ω = diag [ λ 1 , λ 2 ] 𝜔 diag subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 \omega={\rm diag}[\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}] italic_ω = roman_diag [ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] with λ 1 + λ 2 = 1 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 1 \lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}=1 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 and λ 1 ≤ λ 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 \lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , and A = [ a i j ] i , j , B = [ b i j ] i , j ∈ M 2 ( ℂ ) formulae-sequence 𝐴 subscript delimited-[] subscript 𝑎 𝑖 𝑗 𝑖 𝑗
𝐵 subscript delimited-[] subscript 𝑏 𝑖 𝑗 𝑖 𝑗
subscript 𝑀 2 ℂ A=[a_{ij}]_{i,j},B=[b_{ij}]_{i,j}\in M_{2}({\mathbb{C}}) italic_A = [ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B = [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) .
[Proof of (14 )] Note that inequality (17 ) along with the fact [ A + α 𝕀 , B + β 𝕀 ] = [ A , B ] 𝐴 𝛼 𝕀 𝐵 𝛽 𝕀 𝐴 𝐵 [A+\alpha\mathop{\mathbb{I}}\nolimits,B+\beta\mathop{\mathbb{I}}\nolimits]=[A,B] [ italic_A + italic_α blackboard_I , italic_B + italic_β blackboard_I ] = [ italic_A , italic_B ] for any α , β ∈ ℂ 𝛼 𝛽
ℂ \alpha,\beta\in{\mathbb{C}} italic_α , italic_β ∈ blackboard_C allows us to assume that A 𝐴 A italic_A and B 𝐵 B italic_B take the forms A − tr ( A ω ) I and B − tr ( B ω ) I 𝐴 trace 𝐴 𝜔 𝐼 and 𝐵 trace 𝐵 𝜔 𝐼 A-\tr(A\omega)I\ {\rm and}\ B-\tr(B\omega)I italic_A - roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A italic_ω end_ARG ) italic_I roman_and italic_B - roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_B italic_ω end_ARG ) italic_I , respectively. This is equivalent to assuming a 22 = − λ 1 λ 2 a 11 subscript 𝑎 22 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝑎 11 a_{22}=-\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}a_{11} italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 22 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and b 22 = − λ 1 λ 2 b 11 subscript 𝑏 22 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝑏 11 b_{22}=-\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}b_{11} italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 22 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
The direct computation then yields the identity
λ m + λ sm λ m λ sm ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ‖ B ‖ ω 2 − ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 = | 1 λ 2 λ 1 λ 2 a 11 b ¯ 11 + λ 1 λ 2 a 21 b ¯ 21 + λ 2 λ 1 a 12 b ¯ 12 | 2 , subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 subscript superscript norm 𝐵 2 𝜔 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 𝜔 superscript 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝑎 11 subscript ¯ 𝑏 11 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝑎 21 subscript ¯ 𝑏 21 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝑎 12 subscript ¯ 𝑏 12 2 \displaystyle\frac{\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm sm}}{\lambda_{\rm m}\lambda_{%
\rm sm}}\|A\|^{2}_{\omega}\|B\|^{2}_{\omega}-\|[A,B]\|^{2}_{\omega}=\left|%
\frac{1}{\lambda_{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}}a_{11}\bar{b}_{11}+%
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}}a_{21}\bar{b}_{21}+\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{%
2}}{\lambda_{1}}}a_{12}\bar{b}_{12}\right|^{2}, divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = | divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(19)
where we have used λ m = λ 1 , λ sm = λ 2 formulae-sequence subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 2 \lambda_{\rm m}=\lambda_{1},\lambda_{\rm sm}=\lambda_{2} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and λ 1 + λ 2 = 1 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 1 \lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}=1 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 .
This clearly implies inequality (14 ).
[Proof of (15 )] We may assume B 𝐵 B italic_B to take the form B − tr ( B ) n I 𝐵 trace 𝐵 𝑛 𝐼 B-\frac{\tr(B)}{n}I italic_B - divide start_ARG roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG italic_I by using (18 ), while A 𝐴 A italic_A retains the form A − tr ( A ω ) I 𝐴 trace 𝐴 𝜔 𝐼 A-\tr(A\omega)I italic_A - roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A italic_ω end_ARG ) italic_I as above. Thus, a 22 = − λ 1 λ 2 a 11 subscript 𝑎 22 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝑎 11 a_{22}=-\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}a_{11} italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 22 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and b 22 = − b 11 subscript 𝑏 22 subscript 𝑏 11 b_{22}=-b_{11} italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 22 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Noting that λ m = λ 1 , λ M = λ 2 formulae-sequence subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 2 \lambda_{\rm m}=\lambda_{1},\lambda_{\rm M}=\lambda_{2} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , λ 1 + λ 2 = 1 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 1 \lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}=1 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 and λ 2 ≥ 1 2 ≥ λ 1 subscript 𝜆 2 1 2 subscript 𝜆 1 \lambda_{2}\geq\frac{1}{2}\geq\lambda_{1} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ≥ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we have
λ M + λ m λ m ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ‖ B ‖ 2 − ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 = 2 λ 2 | a 11 | 2 | b 11 | 2 + | a 21 | 2 | b 21 | 2 + λ 2 λ 1 | a 12 | 2 | b 12 | 2 subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 m subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 superscript norm 𝐵 2 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 2 superscript subscript 𝑎 11 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 11 2 superscript subscript 𝑎 21 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 21 2 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 superscript subscript 𝑎 12 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 12 2 \displaystyle\frac{\lambda_{\rm M}+\lambda_{\rm m}}{\lambda_{\rm m}}\|A\|^{2}_%
{\omega}\|B\|^{2}-\|[A,B]\|^{2}_{\omega}=\frac{2}{\lambda_{2}}|a_{11}|^{2}|b_{%
11}|^{2}+|a_{21}|^{2}|b_{21}|^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{1}}|a_{12}|^{2}|%
b_{12}|^{2} divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+ λ 2 − λ 1 λ 1 | a 12 | 2 | b 21 | 2 + 2 ( 1 − 2 λ 1 ) | a 21 | 2 | b 11 | 2 + λ 2 − λ 1 λ 2 2 | a 11 | 2 | b 21 | 2 + 2 λ 2 ( 1 − 2 λ 1 ) λ 1 | a 12 | 2 | b 11 | 2 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 1 superscript subscript 𝑎 12 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 21 2 2 1 2 subscript 𝜆 1 superscript subscript 𝑎 21 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 11 2 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript superscript 𝜆 2 2 superscript subscript 𝑎 11 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 21 2 2 subscript 𝜆 2 1 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 1 superscript subscript 𝑎 12 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 11 2 \displaystyle\quad+\frac{\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{1}}|a_{12}|^{2}|b_{%
21}|^{2}+2(1-2\lambda_{1})|a_{21}|^{2}|b_{11}|^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{%
1}}{\lambda^{2}_{2}}|a_{11}|^{2}|b_{21}|^{2}+\frac{2\lambda_{2}(1-2\lambda_{1}%
)}{\lambda_{1}}|a_{12}|^{2}|b_{11}|^{2} + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 ( 1 - 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+ 2 R e a 12 a ¯ 21 b ¯ 12 b 21 + 4 λ 1 λ 2 Re a 11 a ¯ 21 b ¯ 11 b 21 + 4 R e a 11 a ¯ 12 b ¯ 11 b 12 2 R e subscript 𝑎 12 subscript ¯ 𝑎 21 subscript ¯ 𝑏 12 subscript 𝑏 21 4 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 Re subscript 𝑎 11 subscript ¯ 𝑎 21 subscript ¯ 𝑏 11 subscript 𝑏 21 4 R e subscript 𝑎 11 subscript ¯ 𝑎 12 subscript ¯ 𝑏 11 subscript 𝑏 12 \displaystyle\quad+2{\rm Re}a_{12}\bar{a}_{21}\bar{b}_{12}b_{21}+\frac{4%
\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}{\rm Re}a_{11}\bar{a}_{21}\bar{b}_{11}b_{21}+4{\rm Re%
}a_{11}\bar{a}_{12}\bar{b}_{11}b_{12} + 2 roman_R roman_e italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 4 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_Re italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 4 roman_R roman_e italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
≥ 2 λ 2 | a 11 | 2 | b 11 | 2 + | a 21 | 2 | b 21 | 2 + λ 2 λ 1 | a 12 | 2 | b 12 | 2 absent 2 subscript 𝜆 2 superscript subscript 𝑎 11 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 11 2 superscript subscript 𝑎 21 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 21 2 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 superscript subscript 𝑎 12 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 12 2 \displaystyle\geq\frac{2}{\lambda_{2}}|a_{11}|^{2}|b_{11}|^{2}+|a_{21}|^{2}|b_%
{21}|^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{1}}|a_{12}|^{2}|b_{12}|^{2} ≥ divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+ 2 R e a 12 a ¯ 21 b ¯ 12 b 21 + 4 λ 1 λ 2 Re a 11 a ¯ 21 b ¯ 11 b 21 + 4 R e a 11 a ¯ 12 b ¯ 11 b 12 2 R e subscript 𝑎 12 subscript ¯ 𝑎 21 subscript ¯ 𝑏 12 subscript 𝑏 21 4 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 Re subscript 𝑎 11 subscript ¯ 𝑎 21 subscript ¯ 𝑏 11 subscript 𝑏 21 4 R e subscript 𝑎 11 subscript ¯ 𝑎 12 subscript ¯ 𝑏 11 subscript 𝑏 12 \displaystyle\quad+2{\rm Re}a_{12}\bar{a}_{21}\bar{b}_{12}b_{21}+\frac{4%
\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}{\rm Re}a_{11}\bar{a}_{21}\bar{b}_{11}b_{21}+4{\rm Re%
}a_{11}\bar{a}_{12}\bar{b}_{11}b_{12} + 2 roman_R roman_e italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 4 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_Re italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 4 roman_R roman_e italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
≥ 4 λ 1 λ 2 | a 11 | 2 | b 11 | 2 + λ 1 λ 2 | a 21 | 2 | b 21 | 2 + λ 2 λ 1 | a 12 | 2 | b 12 | 2 absent 4 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 superscript subscript 𝑎 11 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 11 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 superscript subscript 𝑎 21 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 21 2 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 superscript subscript 𝑎 12 2 superscript subscript 𝑏 12 2 \displaystyle\geq\frac{4\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}|a_{11}|^{2}|b_{11}|^{2}+%
\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}|a_{21}|^{2}|b_{21}|^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{2}}{%
\lambda_{1}}|a_{12}|^{2}|b_{12}|^{2} ≥ divide start_ARG 4 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+ 2 R e a 12 a ¯ 21 b ¯ 12 b 21 + 4 λ 1 λ 2 Re a 11 a ¯ 21 b ¯ 11 b 21 + 4 R e a 11 a ¯ 12 b ¯ 11 b 12 2 R e subscript 𝑎 12 subscript ¯ 𝑎 21 subscript ¯ 𝑏 12 subscript 𝑏 21 4 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 Re subscript 𝑎 11 subscript ¯ 𝑎 21 subscript ¯ 𝑏 11 subscript 𝑏 21 4 R e subscript 𝑎 11 subscript ¯ 𝑎 12 subscript ¯ 𝑏 11 subscript 𝑏 12 \displaystyle\quad+2{\rm Re}a_{12}\bar{a}_{21}\bar{b}_{12}b_{21}+\frac{4%
\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}{\rm Re}a_{11}\bar{a}_{21}\bar{b}_{11}b_{21}+4{\rm Re%
}a_{11}\bar{a}_{12}\bar{b}_{11}b_{12} + 2 roman_R roman_e italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 4 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_Re italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 4 roman_R roman_e italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= | 2 λ 1 λ 2 a 11 b ¯ 11 + λ 1 λ 2 a 21 b ¯ 21 + λ 2 λ 1 a 12 b ¯ 12 | 2 absent superscript 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝑎 11 subscript ¯ 𝑏 11 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝑎 21 subscript ¯ 𝑏 21 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝑎 12 subscript ¯ 𝑏 12 2 \displaystyle=\left|2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}}a_{11}\bar{b}_{11}+%
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{2}}}a_{21}\bar{b}_{21}+\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{%
2}}{\lambda_{1}}}a_{12}\bar{b}_{12}\right|^{2} = | 2 square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 21 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
which implies inequality (15 ).
Appendix A Proofs of conjectures for special cases
In this appendix, we give proofs of (14 ) and (15 ) in some restricted cases.
[The case where A 𝐴 A italic_A is normal and commutes with ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω ]
Here we give proofs of (14 ) and (15 ) in the case where A 𝐴 A italic_A is normal and commutes with ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω .
In this case, we can assume that both A 𝐴 A italic_A and ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω are diagonal: Let
A = diag [ a 1 , … , a n ] ( a i ∈ ℂ ) 𝐴 diag subscript 𝑎 1 … subscript 𝑎 𝑛
subscript 𝑎 𝑖 ℂ A={\rm diag}[a_{1},\ldots,a_{n}]\ (a_{i}\in{\mathbb{C}}) italic_A = roman_diag [ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C ) and ω = diag [ λ 1 , … , λ n ] 𝜔 diag subscript 𝜆 1 … subscript 𝜆 𝑛
\omega={\rm diag}[\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{n}] italic_ω = roman_diag [ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]
( λ 1 ≤ λ 2 ≤ ⋯ ≤ λ n ) subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 ⋯ subscript 𝜆 𝑛 (\lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_{n}) ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ⋯ ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and B = [ b i j ] ∈ M n ( ℂ ) 𝐵 delimited-[] subscript 𝑏 𝑖 𝑗 subscript 𝑀 𝑛 ℂ B=[b_{ij}]\in M_{n}({\mathbb{C}}) italic_B = [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C ) .
Now, a direct computation yields:
λ m + λ sm λ m λ sm ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ‖ B ‖ ω 2 − ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 sm subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 subscript superscript norm 𝐵 2 𝜔 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 𝜔 \displaystyle\frac{\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm sm}}{\lambda_{\rm m}\lambda_{%
\rm sm}}\|A\|^{2}_{\omega}\|B\|^{2}_{\omega}-\|[A,B]\|^{2}_{\omega} divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= ∑ i , j | b i j | 2 λ j ( λ 1 + λ 2 λ 1 λ 2 ∑ k | a k | 2 λ k − | a i − a j | 2 ) absent subscript 𝑖 𝑗
superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑖 𝑗 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 2 subscript 𝑘 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑘 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑖 subscript 𝑎 𝑗 2 \displaystyle\quad=\sum_{i,j}|b_{ij}|^{2}\lambda_{j}\left(\frac{\lambda_{1}+%
\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}\sum_{k}|a_{k}|^{2}\lambda_{k}-|a_{i}-a_{j%
}|^{2}\right) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
≥ ∑ i , j | b i j | 2 λ j ( ( λ i λ 1 + λ i λ 2 − 1 ) | a i | 2 + 2 R e ( a i a ¯ j ) + ( λ j λ 1 + λ j λ 2 − 1 ) | a j | 2 ) . absent subscript 𝑖 𝑗
superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑖 𝑗 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 2 1 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑖 2 2 R e subscript 𝑎 𝑖 subscript ¯ 𝑎 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 2 1 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑗 2 \displaystyle\quad\geq\sum_{i,j}|b_{ij}|^{2}\lambda_{j}\left(\left(\frac{%
\lambda_{i}}{\lambda_{1}}+\frac{\lambda_{i}}{\lambda_{2}}-1\right)|a_{i}|^{2}+%
2{\rm Re}(a_{i}\bar{a}_{j})+\left(\frac{\lambda_{j}}{\lambda_{1}}+\frac{%
\lambda_{j}}{\lambda_{2}}-1\right)|a_{j}|^{2}\right). ≥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ( divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - 1 ) | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 roman_R roman_e ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + ( divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - 1 ) | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
(29)
Note that T ( i ) := λ i λ 1 + λ i λ 2 − 1 assign 𝑇 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 2 1 T(i):=\frac{\lambda_{i}}{\lambda_{1}}+\frac{\lambda_{i}}{\lambda_{2}}-1 italic_T ( italic_i ) := divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - 1 is larger than or equal to 1 1 1 1 when i ≠ 1 𝑖 1 i\neq 1 italic_i ≠ 1 , and satisfies T ( i ) T ( 1 ) ≥ 1 𝑇 𝑖 𝑇 1 1 T(i)T(1)\geq 1 italic_T ( italic_i ) italic_T ( 1 ) ≥ 1 for any 2 ≤ i ≤ n 2 𝑖 𝑛 2\leq i\leq n 2 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n . This clearly shows that (29 ) is non-negative, confirming (14 ).
Similarly, (15 ) can also be demonstrated as
λ M + λ m λ m ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ‖ B ‖ 2 − ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 subscript 𝜆 M subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 m subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 superscript norm 𝐵 2 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 𝜔 \displaystyle\frac{\lambda_{\rm M}+\lambda_{\rm m}}{\lambda_{\rm m}}\|A\|^{2}_%
{\omega}\|B\|^{2}-\|[A,B]\|^{2}_{\omega} divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= ∑ i , j | b i j | 2 ( λ n + λ 1 λ 1 ∑ k | a k | 2 λ k − | a i − a j | 2 λ j ) absent subscript 𝑖 𝑗
superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑖 𝑗 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝑘 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑘 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑖 subscript 𝑎 𝑗 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 \displaystyle\quad=\sum_{i,j}|b_{ij}|^{2}\left(\frac{\lambda_{n}+\lambda_{\rm 1%
}}{\lambda_{\rm 1}}\sum_{k}|a_{k}|^{2}\lambda_{k}-|a_{i}-a_{j}|^{2}\lambda_{j}\right) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
≥ ∑ i , j | b i j | 2 ( ( λ i + λ n λ 1 λ i − λ j ) | a i | 2 + 2 R e ( a i a ¯ j λ j ) + λ n λ 1 λ j | a j | 2 ) absent subscript 𝑖 𝑗
superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑖 𝑗 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑖 2 2 R e subscript 𝑎 𝑖 subscript ¯ 𝑎 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑗 2 \displaystyle\quad\geq\sum_{i,j}|b_{ij}|^{2}\left(\left(\lambda_{i}+\frac{%
\lambda_{n}}{\lambda_{\rm 1}}\lambda_{i}-\lambda_{j}\right)|a_{i}|^{2}+2{\rm Re%
}(a_{i}\bar{a}_{j}\lambda_{j})+\frac{\lambda_{n}}{\lambda_{\rm 1}}\lambda_{j}|%
a_{j}|^{2}\right) ≥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 roman_R roman_e ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
≥ ∑ i , j | b i j | 2 ( λ i | a i | 2 + 2 R e ( a i a ¯ j λ j ) + λ j λ i λ j | a j | 2 ) absent subscript 𝑖 𝑗
superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑖 𝑗 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑖 2 2 R e subscript 𝑎 𝑖 subscript ¯ 𝑎 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑗 2 \displaystyle\quad\geq\sum_{i,j}|b_{ij}|^{2}\left(\lambda_{i}|a_{i}|^{2}+2{\rm
Re%
}(a_{i}\bar{a}_{j}\lambda_{j})+\frac{\lambda_{j}}{\lambda_{i}}\lambda_{j}|a_{j%
}|^{2}\right) ≥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 roman_R roman_e ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
= ∑ i , j | b i j | 2 | λ i a i + λ j λ i a j | 2 ≥ 0 . absent subscript 𝑖 𝑗
superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑖 𝑗 2 superscript subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝑎 𝑖 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑖 subscript 𝑎 𝑗 2 0 \displaystyle\quad=\sum_{i,j}|b_{ij}|^{2}\left|\sqrt{\lambda_{i}}a_{i}+\frac{%
\lambda_{j}}{\sqrt{\lambda_{i}}}a_{j}\right|^{2}\geq 0. = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | square-root start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 0 .
(30)
[The case where B 𝐵 B italic_B commutes with ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω ]
When matrix B 𝐵 B italic_B commutes with ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , conjecture (15 ) can be easy to show. Moreover, the tight bound in this case coincides with BW bound, i.e., ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω ≤ 2 ‖ A ‖ ω ‖ B ‖ subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 2 subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 norm 𝐵 \|[A,B]\|_{\omega}\leq\sqrt{2}\|A\|_{\omega}\|B\| ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ .
To show this, we use the relation:
‖ A ‖ ω = ‖ A ω ‖ , subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 norm 𝐴 𝜔 \|A\|_{\omega}=\|A\sqrt{\omega}\|, ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_A square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG ∥ ,
(31)
which follows from the cyclic property of trace as ‖ A ‖ ω 2 = tr A ∗ A ω = tr ω A ∗ A ω = tr ( A ω ) ∗ A ω = ‖ A ω ‖ 2 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 trace superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 𝜔 trace 𝜔 superscript 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 𝜔 superscript trace 𝐴 𝜔 ∗ 𝐴 𝜔 superscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 2 \|A\|^{2}_{\omega}=\tr A^{\ast}A\omega=\tr\sqrt{\omega}A^{\ast}A\sqrt{\omega}=%
\tr(A\sqrt{\omega})^{\ast}A\sqrt{\omega}=\|A\sqrt{\omega}\|^{2} ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_tr italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A italic_ω = roman_tr square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG = roman_tr ( start_ARG italic_A square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG = ∥ italic_A square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Given that B 𝐵 B italic_B commutes with ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω , and therefore with ω 𝜔 \sqrt{\omega} square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG , the relation [ B , A ] ω = [ B , A ω ] 𝐵 𝐴 𝜔 𝐵 𝐴 𝜔 [B,A]\sqrt{\omega}=[B,A\sqrt{\omega}] [ italic_B , italic_A ] square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG = [ italic_B , italic_A square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG ] is satisfied.
By using (31 ) and BW inequality, we have
‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 = ‖ [ B , A ] ‖ ω 2 = ‖ [ B , A ] ω ‖ 2 = ‖ [ B , A ω ] ‖ 2 ≤ 2 ‖ B ‖ 2 ‖ A ω ‖ 2 = 2 ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ‖ B ‖ 2 . subscript superscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 2 𝜔 subscript superscript norm 𝐵 𝐴 2 𝜔 superscript norm 𝐵 𝐴 𝜔 2 superscript norm 𝐵 𝐴 𝜔 2 2 superscript norm 𝐵 2 superscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 2 2 subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 superscript norm 𝐵 2 \|[A,B]\|^{2}_{\omega}=\|[B,A]\|^{2}_{\omega}=\|[B,A]\sqrt{\omega}\|^{2}=\|[B,%
A\sqrt{\omega}]\|^{2}\leq\sqrt{2}\|B\|^{2}\|A\sqrt{\omega}\|^{2}=\sqrt{2}\|A\|%
^{2}_{\omega}\|B\|^{2}. ∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ [ italic_B , italic_A ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ [ italic_B , italic_A ] square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∥ [ italic_B , italic_A square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_A square-root start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
[The case where B = | λ 1 ⟩ ⟨ λ n | 𝐵 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 B=\outerproduct{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{n}} italic_B = | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | ]
Our numerical experiments indicate that the optimal matrix B 𝐵 B italic_B for achieving the bound c 2 ~ ( ω ) ~ subscript 𝑐 2 𝜔 \tilde{c_{2}}(\omega) over~ start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ω ) , as specified in (4 ), invariably takes the form B = | λ 1 ⟩ ⟨ λ n | 𝐵 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 B=\outerproduct{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{n}} italic_B = | start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | (after the normalization).
Once we assume this fact, we can prove conjecture (15 ) as follows.
Denoting a i j := ⟨ λ i | A λ j ⟩ assign subscript 𝑎 𝑖 𝑗 inner-product subscript 𝜆 𝑖 𝐴 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 a_{ij}:=\langle\lambda_{i}|A\lambda_{j}\rangle italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ⟨ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_A italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , a direct computation yields ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 = λ n ∑ j | a j 1 | 2 − 2 λ n Re ( a n n a 11 ¯ ) + ∑ j λ j | a n j | 2 superscript subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑗 1 2 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 𝑛 ¯ subscript 𝑎 11 subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 𝑗 2 \norm{[A,B]}_{\omega}^{2}=\lambda_{n}\sum_{j}|a_{j1}|^{2}-2\lambda_{n}\real(a_%
{nn}\overline{a_{11}})+\sum_{j}\lambda_{j}|a_{nj}|^{2} ∥ start_ARG [ italic_A , italic_B ] end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_OPERATOR roman_Re end_OPERATOR ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ‖ A ‖ ω 2 = ∑ j λ j ∑ k | a k j | 2 superscript subscript norm 𝐴 𝜔 2 subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝜆 𝑗 subscript 𝑘 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑗 2 \norm{A}_{\omega}^{2}=\sum_{j}\lambda_{j}\sum_{k}|a_{kj}|^{2} ∥ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ‖ B ‖ 2 = 1 superscript norm 𝐵 2 1 \|B\|^{2}=1 ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 1 .
Consequently, it follows that
( λ m + λ M ) ‖ A ‖ ω 2 ‖ B ‖ 2 − λ m ‖ [ A , B ] ‖ ω 2 subscript 𝜆 m subscript 𝜆 M subscript superscript norm 𝐴 2 𝜔 superscript norm 𝐵 2 subscript 𝜆 m superscript subscript norm 𝐴 𝐵 𝜔 2 \displaystyle(\lambda_{\rm m}+\lambda_{\rm M})\norm{A}^{2}_{\omega}\norm{B}^{2%
}-\lambda_{\rm m}\norm{[A,B]}_{\omega}^{2} ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_ARG [ italic_A , italic_B ] end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= \displaystyle= =
λ 1 ∑ j k ≠ n λ j | a k j | 2 + λ n ∑ j ≠ 1 k λ j | a k j | 2 + 2 λ 1 λ n Re ( a n n a 11 ¯ ) subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝑗 𝑘 𝑛
subscript 𝜆 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑗 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝑗 1 𝑘
subscript 𝜆 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑗 2 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 𝑛 ¯ subscript 𝑎 11 \displaystyle\lambda_{1}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}j\\
k\neq n\end{subarray}}\lambda_{j}|a_{kj}|^{2}+\lambda_{n}\sum_{\begin{subarray%
}{c}j\neq 1\\
k\end{subarray}}\lambda_{j}|a_{kj}|^{2}+2\lambda_{1}\lambda_{n}\real(a_{nn}%
\overline{a_{11}}) italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_j end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_k ≠ italic_n end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_j ≠ 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_k end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_OPERATOR roman_Re end_OPERATOR ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG )
(32)
= \displaystyle= =
| λ 1 a 11 + λ n a n n | 2 + λ 1 2 ∑ k ≠ 1 , n | a k 1 | 2 + λ 1 ∑ j ≠ 1 k ≠ n λ j | a k j | 2 + λ n 2 ∑ k ≠ n | a k n | 2 + λ n ∑ j ≠ 1 , n k λ j | a k j | 2 ≥ 0 superscript subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝑎 11 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 𝑛 2 superscript subscript 𝜆 1 2 subscript 𝑘 1 𝑛
superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 1 2 subscript 𝜆 1 subscript 𝑗 1 𝑘 𝑛
subscript 𝜆 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑗 2 subscript superscript 𝜆 2 𝑛 subscript 𝑘 𝑛
superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑛 2 subscript 𝜆 𝑛 subscript 𝑗 1 𝑛
𝑘
subscript 𝜆 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑗 2 0 \displaystyle\Bigl{|}\lambda_{1}a_{11}+\lambda_{n}a_{nn}\Bigr{|}^{2}+\lambda_{%
1}^{2}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k\neq 1,n\end{subarray}}|a_{k1}|^{2}+\lambda_{1%
}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}j\neq 1\\
k\neq n\end{subarray}}\lambda_{j}|a_{kj}|^{2}+\lambda^{2}_{n}\sum_{\begin{%
subarray}{c}k\neq n\end{subarray}}|a_{kn}|^{2}+\lambda_{n}\sum_{\begin{%
subarray}{c}j\neq 1,n\\
k\end{subarray}}\lambda_{j}|a_{kj}|^{2}\geq 0 | italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_k ≠ 1 , italic_n end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_j ≠ 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_k ≠ italic_n end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_k ≠ italic_n end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_j ≠ 1 , italic_n end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_k end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 0
(33)