Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Generalized singular value decomposition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Kaba3

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

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