arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 3 Oct 2015

Transcription

1 new L -ntieigenvalue Condition for Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Oerators arxiv: v1 [math.p] 3 Oct 015 Denny Otten 1 Deartment of Mathematics Bielefeld University Bielefeld Germany Date: Setember 8, 018 bstract. In this aer we study erturbed Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerators [L v]x) = vx)+ Sx, vx) Bvx), x R d, d, for simultaneously diagonalizable matrices,b C N,N. The unbounded drift term is defined by a skew-symmetric matrix S R d,d. Differential oerators of this form aear when investigating rotating waves in time-deendent reaction diffusion systems. s shown in a comanion aer, one key assumtion to rove resolvent estimates of L in L R d,c N ), 1 < <, is the following L -dissiativity condition z Re w,w + )Re w,z Re z,w γ z w z,w C N for some γ > 0. We rove that the L -dissiativity condition is equivalent to a new L - antieigenvalue condition invertible and µ 1) >, 1 < <, µ 1) first antieigenvalue of, which is a lower -deendent bound of the first antieigenvalue of the diffusion matrix. This relation rovides a comlete algebraic characterization and a geometric meaning of L - dissiativity for comlex-valued Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerators in terms of the antieigenvalues of. The roof is based on the method of Lagrange multiliers. We also discuss several secial cases in which the first antieigenvalue can be given exlicitly. Key words. Comlex-valued Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerator, L -dissiativity, L -antieigenvalue condition, alications to rotating waves. MS subject classification. 35J47 47B44, 47D06, 350, 4710). 1. Introduction In this aer we study L -dissiativity of differential oerators of the form [L v]x) := vx)+ Sx, vx) Bvx), x R d, d, for simultaneously diagonalizable matrices,b C N,N with Reσ) > 0 and a skew-symmetric matrix S R d,d. 1 dotten@math.uni-bielefeld.de, hone: +49 0) , fax: +49 0) , homeage: htt:// suorted by CRC 701 Sectral Structures and Toological Methods in Mathematics. 1

2 Introducing the comlex Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerator, [9], with diffusion term and drift term given by vx) := [L 0 v]x) := vx)+ Sx, vx), x R d, d x i=1 i vx) and Sx, vx) := d i=1 Sx) i x i vx), we observe that the oerator L = L 0 B is a constant coefficient erturbation of L 0. Our interest is in skew-symmetric matrices S = S T, in which case the drift term is rotational containing angular derivatives Sx, vx) = d 1 d i=1 j=i+1 ) S ij x j x i vx). x i x j Such differential oerators arise when investigating exonential decay of rotating waves in reaction diffusion systems, see [1, 19]. The oerator L aears as a far-field linearization at the solution of the nonlinear roblem L 0 v = fv). The results of this aer are crucial for dealing with the nonlinear case, see [19]. n essential ingredient to treat the nonlinear case is to rove L -resolvent estimates for L, [1, Theorem 4.4]. Such estimates are used to solve the identification roblem for L, [1, Theorem 5.1]. One key assumtion to rove resolvent estimates ofl in L R d,c N ), 1 < <, is the following L -dissiativity condition z Re w,w + )Re w,z Re z,w γ z w z,w C N for some γ > 0. In general, it is not easy to characterize the class of matrices which satisfy this algebraic condition. Only in a few secial cases, e.g. in the scalar case N = 1 or for general N and =, one can check the validity directly. The aim of this aer is to rove that the L -dissiativity condition is equivalent to a new L -antieigenvalue condition, namely invertible and µ 1 ) >, 1 < <, µ 1 ) first antieigenvalue of, which is a lower -deendent bound of the first antieigenvalue of the diffusion matrix. This criterion imlies an uer -deendent bound for the maximal real) angle of ) Φ R ) := cos 1 µ 1 )) < cos 1 ]0, π ], 1 < <. The relation between the L -dissiativity and the L -antieigenvalue condition seems to be new in the literature and is roved in Theorem 3.1. It rovides a comlete algebraic characterization and a nice geometric meaning of L -dissiativity for comlex-valued Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerators in terms of the antieigenvalues of. The roof is based on the method of Lagrange multiliers and requires to destinguish between the cases R N,N and C N,N. We also discuss several secial cases in which the first antieigenvalue can be given exlicitly. L -dissiativity of second order differential oerators in the scalar but more general case has been analyzed by Cialdea and Maz ya in [3, 5,, 4]. General theory of antieigenvalues has been develoed by Gustafson in [7, 9] and indeendently by Kreĭn in [17]. Exlicit reresentations of antieigenvalues have been established for Hermitian ositive definite oerators by Mirman in [18] and by Horn and Johnson in [16], and for strictly) accretive normal oerators by Seddighin and Gustafson in [8, 6, 14, 13], by Davis in [6] and by Mirman in [18]. roximation results and

3 3 the comutation of antieigenvalues have been analyzed by Seddighin in [7] and [5, 4], resectively. For general theory of antieigenvalues and its alication to oerator theory, numerical analysis, wavelets, statistics, quantum mechanics, finance and otimization we refer to the book by Gustafson, [1]. Further alications are treated in [7, 8, 15, 11]. There are some extensions of the antieigenvalue theory to higher antieigenvalues, see [14, 8], to joint antieigenvalues, see [6], to symmetric antieigenvalues, see [], and to θ-antieigenvalues, see [3]. Historical background material can be found in [1, 10]. The method of Lagrange multiliers, that is necessary to rove our main result, is also used in [13]. The L -dissiativity condition can be found in [19, 1] and is used to rove resolvent estimates for comlex Ornstein-Uhlenbeck systems. The results from Section 3 and 4 are directly based on the PhD thesis [19].. ssumtions and outline of results Consider the differential oerator [L v]x) := vx)+ Sx, vx) Bvx), x R d, d, for some matrices,b C N,N and S R d,d. The following conditions will be needed in this aer and relations among them will be discussed below. ssumtion.1. Let,B K N,N with K {R,C} and S R d,d be such that 1) ) 3) 4) 5) 6) and B are simultaneously diagonalizable over C), Reσ) > 0, There exists some β > 0 such that Re w,w β w K N, w = 1, There exists some γ > 0 such that z Re w,w + )Re w,z Re z,w γ z w z,w K N for some 1 < <, Case N = 1, K = R): = a > 0, Cases N, K = R) and N 1, K = C): invertible and µ 1 ) > for some 1 < <, S is skew-symmetric. ssumtion 1) is a system condition and ensures that some results for scalar equations can be extended to system cases. This condition was used in [19, 0] to derive an exlicit formula for the heat kernel of L. It is motivated by the fact that a transformation of a scalar comlexvalued equation into a -dimensional real-valued system always imlies two real) matrices and B that are simultaneously diagonalizable over C). The ositivity condition ) guarantees that the diffusion art is an ellitic oerator. It requires that all eigenvalues λ of are contained in the oen right half-lane C + := {λ C Reλ > 0}, where σ) denotes the sectrum of. Condition ) guarantees that 1 exists and states that is a stable matrix. To discuss the strict accretivity condition 3), we recall the following definition, from [7, 1].

4 4 Definition.. Let K N,N with K {R,C} and N N, then is called accretive or strictly accretive), if inf w K N w =1 Re w,w 0 or and dissiative or strictly dissiative), if su Re w,w 0 or w K N w =1 inf w K N w =1 Re w,w > 0), su Re w,w < 0). w K N w =1 For Hermitian matrices, relace accretive strictly accretive, dissiative and strictly dissiative) by ositive semi-definite ositive definite, negative semi-definite and negative definite). Condition 3) states that the matrix is strictly accretive, which is more restrictive than ). In 3), u,v := u T v denotes the standard inner roduct on K N. Note that condition ) is satisfied if and only if [, ] inner roduct on K N : Re [w,w] β > 0 w K N, [w,w] = 1, but it does not imly [, ] =,. Condition 3) ensures that the differential oerator L is closed on its local) domain D loc L 0). The L -dissiativity condition 4) seems to be new in the literature and is used to rove L -resolvent estimates for L in [19, 1]. Condition 4) is more restrictive than 3) and imoses additional requirements on the sectrum of. L -dissiativity results for scalar differential oerators of the form Lv = T Q v)+b T v +av, x Ω has been established in [4] for constant coefficients Q C d,d, b C d, a C with Ω R d oen, and for variable coefficients Q ij,b j C 1 Ω,C), a C 0 Ω,C), i,j = 1,...d, with Ω R d bounded. In the scalar comlex case with = α C and B = δ C, the choice Q = αi d, b = Sx, a = δ, Ω = R d imliesl = L and leads to a differential oerator with variable coefficients but on an unbounded domain. Thus, the L -dissiativity of L has not been treated in [4], neither for the system nor for the scalar case. Therefore, the L -dissiativity condition 4), which has been established in [19, 1], can not be deduced from [4]. Recall the following definition from [7, 1]. Definition.3. Let K N,N with K {R,C} and N N. Then we define by.1) Re w,w Re w,w µ 1 ) := inf = inf w K N w w w K N w w 0 w =1 w 0 w 0 the first antieigenvalue of. vector 0 w K N with w 0 for which the infimum is attained, is called an antieigenvector of. Moreover, we define the real) angle of by Φ R ) := cos 1 µ 1 )). The exression for µ 1 ) is also sometimes denoted by cos and by cosφ R ))) and is called the cosine of. It was introduced simultaneously by Gustafson in [7] and by Kreĭn in [17], where the exression for µ 1 ) is denoted by dev and is called the deviation of. Note that the definition of the first antieigenvalue is not consistent in the literature, in the sense that sometimes the matrix is additionally assumed to be accretive or strictly accretive. Let us briefly motivate the geometric idea behind eigenvalues and antieigenvalues: Eigenvectors are those vectors that

5 5 are stretched or dilated) by a matrix without any rotation). Their corresonding eigenvalues are the factors by which they are stretched. The eigenvalues may be ordered as a sectrum from smallest to largest eigenvalue. ntieigenvectors are those vectors that are rotated or turned) by a matrix without any stretching). Their corresonding antieigenvalues are the cosines of their associated turning angle. The antieigenvalues may be orderd from largest to smallest turning angle. Therefore, the first antieigenvalue µ 1 ) can be considered as the cosine of the maximal turning angle of the matrix. The L -antieigenvalue condition 5) ostulates that µ 1 ) is bounded from below by a non-negative -deendent constant. This is equivalent to the following -deendent uer bound for the real) angle of, Φ R ) := cos 1 µ 1 )) < cos 1 ) ]0, π ], 1 < <. In the scalar comlex case = α C, assumtion 5) leads to a cone condition which requires α to lie in a -deendent sector in the right half-lane, see Section 4.. The cone condition coincides with the L -dissiativity condition from [4, Theorem ] for differential oerators with constant coefficients on unbounded domains and with the L -quasi-dissiativity condition from [4, Theorem 4] for differential oerators with variable coefficients on bounded domains. Our main result in Theorem 3.1 shows that assumtions 4) and 5) are equivalent. Therefore, 5) can be considered as a more intuitive descrition of assumtion 4). For some classes of matrices, the constant µ 1 ) can be given exlicitly in terms of the eigenvalues of, which facilitates to check condition 4). We summarize the following relation of assumtions ) 5): invertible = ) = 3) = 4) 5). The rotational condition 6) imlies that the drift term contains only angular derivatives, which is crucial for use our results from [0]. Moreover, let β B R be such that.) Re w,bw β B w K N, w = 1. If β B 0,.) can be considered as a dissiativity condition for B, comare Definition.. We introduce Lebesgue and Sobolev saces via with norms L R d,k N ) := { v L 1 locr d,k N ) v L < }, W k, R d,k N ) := { v L R d,k N ) D β v L R d,k N ) β k }, v L R d,k N ) := R d vx) dx ) 1, v W k, R d,k N ) := 0 β k D β v ) 1 L R d,k N ), for every 1 <, k N 0 and multiindex β N d 0. Before we give a detailed outline we briefly review and collect some results from [19, 0, 1] to motivate the origin of the L -dissiativity condition for L. ssuming 1), ) and 6) for K = C it is shown in [19, Theorem ], [0, Theorem 3.1] that the function H : R d R d ]0, [ C N,N defined by.3) Hx,ξ,t) = 4πt) d ex Bt 4t) 1 e ts x ξ ) is a heat kernel of the erturbed Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerator.4) [L v]x) := vx)+ Sx, vx) Bvx).

6 6 Under the same assumtions it is roved in [0, Theorem 5.3] that the family of maings Tt) : L R d,c N ) L R d,c N ), t 0, defined by { [Tt)v]x) := R Hx,ξ,t)vξ)dξ, t > 0.5) d,x R d, vx), t = 0 generates a strongly continuous semigrou on L R d,c N ) for each 1 <. The semigrou Tt)) t 0 is called the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigrou if B = 0. The strong continuity of the semigrou justifies to introduce the infinitesimal generator : L R d,c N ) D ) L R d,c N ) of Tt)) t 0, short,d )), via Tt)v v v := lim, 1 < t 0 t for every v D ), where the domain or maximal domain) of is given by { } D ) := v L R d,c N Tt)v v ) lim exists in L R d,c N ) t 0 t = { v L R d,c N ) v L R d,c N ) }. n alication of abstract semigrou theory yields the unique solvability of the resolvent equation λi )v = g, g L R d,c N ), λ C, λ > max λ σ B) Reλ in L R d,c N ) for 1 <, [0, Corollary 5.5], [19, Corollary 6.7]. But so far, we neither have any exlicit reresentation for the maximal domain D ) nor do we know anything about the relation between the generator and the differential oerator L. For this urose, one has to solve the identification roblem, which has been done in [1]. ssuming 1), ) and 6) for K = C, it is roved in [1, Theorem 3.] that the Schwartz sace SR d,c N ) is a core of the infinitesimal generator,d )) for any 1 <. Next, one considers the oerator L : L R d,c N ) D loc L 0) L R d,c N ) on its domain { } D loc L 0) := v W, loc Rd,C N ) L R d,c N ) v + S, v L R d,c N ). Under the assumtion 3) for K = C, it is shown in [1, Lemma 4.1] that L,D loc L 0)) is a closed oerator in L R d,c N ) for any 1 < <, which justifies to introduce and analyze its resolvent. The L -dissiativity condition 4) is the key assumtion which allows an energy estimate with resect to the L -norm and leads to the following result, see [1, Theorem 4.4]. Theorem.4 Resolvent Estimates forl in L R d,c N ) with1 < < ). Let the assumtions 4) and 6) be satisfied for 1 < < and K = C. Moreover, let λ C with Reλ > β B, where β B R is from.), and let v D loc L 0) denote a solution of λi L )v = g in L R d,c N ) for some g L R d,c N ). Then v is the unique solution in D loc L 0) and satisfies the resolvent estimate v L R d,c N ) 1 Reλ β B g L R d,c N ). In addition, for 1 < the following gradient estimate holds v W 1, R d,c N ) d 1 γ 1 Reλ β B ) 1 g L R d,c N ).

7 7 direct consequence of Theorem.4 is that the oerator L is dissiative in L R d,c N ) for 1 < <, rovided thatβ B from.) satisfiesβ B 0, [1, Corollary 4.6]. Combining Theorem.4, [1, Lemma 4.1], [0, Corollary 5.5] and [1, Theorem 3.] one can solve the identification roblem for L, which has been done in [1, Theorem 5.1]. Theorem.5 Maximal domain, local version). Let the assumtions 1), 4) and 6) be satisfied for 1 < < and K = C, then D ) = D loc L 0) is the maximal domain of, where D loc L 0) is defined by { }.6) D loc L 0) := v W, loc Rd,C N ) L R d,c N ) v + S, v L R d,c N ). In articular, is the maximal realization of L in L R d,c N ), i.e. v = L v for every v D ). Theorem.5 shows that the L -dissiativity condition 4) is crucial to solve the identification roblem for erturbed comlex-valued Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerators. To aly Theorem.5 it is helful to understand which classes of matrices satisfy the algebraic condition 4). This motivates to analyze the L -dissiativity condition 4) in detail. In Section 3 we derive an algebraic characterization of the L -dissiativity condition 4) in terms of the antieigenvalues of the diffusion matrix. For matrices K N,N with K {R,C} we rove in Theorem 3.1 that the L -dissiativity condition 4) is satisfied if and only if the L -antieigenvalue condition 5) holds. The roof uses the method of Lagrange multiliers, first w.r.t. the z-comonent, then w.r.t. the w-comonent. In Section 4 we discuss several secial cases in which the first antieigenvalue can be given exlicitly. For Hermitian ositive definite matrices and for normal accretive matrices we secify well known exlicit exressions for µ 1 ) in terms of the eigenvalues of. These reresentations are roved in [16, 7.4.P4] for Hermitian ositive definite matrices and in [13, Theorem 5.1] for normal accretive matrices. cknowledgment. The author is greatly indebted to Wolf-Jürgen Beyn for extensive discussions which heled in clarifying roofs. 3. L -dissiativity condition versus L -antieigenvalue condition In this section we derive an algebraic characterization of the L -dissiativity condition 4) for the erturbed comlex-valued Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerator L in L R d,c N ) for 1 < <. More recisely, the next theorem shows that the L -dissiativity condition 4) is equivalent to a lower bound for the first antieigenvalue of the diffusion matrix. The roof is based on an alication of the method of Lagrange multiliers. n alication of Theorem 3.1 to b := for 1 < < shows that 4) and 5) are equivalent. The equivalence allows us to require either 4) or 5) in Theorem.4 and Theorem.5. Theorem 3.1 L -dissiativity condition vs. L -antieigenvalue condition). Let K N,N for K = R if N and K = C if N 1, and let b R with b > 1. a) Given some γ > 0, then the following statements are equivalent: 3.1) 3.) z Re w,w +bre w,z Re z,w γ z w w,z K N, 1+ b ) Re w,w b w γ w K N, w = 1.

8 8 b) Moreover, the following statements are equivalent: 3.3) γ > 0 : 1+ b ) Re w,w b w γ w K N, w = 1, 3.4) invertible and µ 1 ) > b +b, where µ 1 ) denotes the first antieigenvalue of in the sense of Definition.3. Proof. a): Obviously, dividing both sides by z w, 3.1) is equivalent to 3.5) Re w,w +bre w,z Re z,w γ w,z K N, z = w = 1. We now rove the equivalence of 3.5) and 3.). The case b = 0 is trivial, so assume w.l.o.g. b 0. We distinguish between the cases K = R and K = C. Case 1: K = R). Let N. In this case we show the equivalence of 3.6) 3.7) w,w +b w,z z,w γ w,z R N, z = w = 1, 1+ b ) w,w b w γ w R N, w = 1, for someγ > 0 by minimizing 3.6) with resect to z subject to z = 1. Note that the minimum exists due to the boundedness of z,w w,z z w w = w. Subcase 1: w, w linearly deendent). Let w and w be linearly deendent, then there exists λ R such that w = λw. Since w = 1, we conclude w 0 and therefore, λ σ). lying 3.6) with z := w 0 < γ w,w +b w,w w,w = 1+b)λ we deduce λ > 0, since b > 1. In this case 3.6) and 3.7) reads as 3.8) 3.9) λ w +λb w,z γ w,z R N, z = w = 1, 1+ b ) λ w b λ w γ w R N, w = 1. The aim follows by minimization of λb w,z with resect to z subject to z = 1. If b > 0 then λb > 0 and therefore, λb w,z is minimal iff w,z is minimal. Choose z w with z = 1 then the minimum is min z R N z =1 λb w,z = min λb w,z = 0. z w z =1 If b < 0 then λb < 0 and therefore, λb w,z is minimal iff w,z is maximal. Choose z {w, w} then the minimum is min λb w,z = λb < 0. z R N z =1 Subcase : w, w linearly indeendent). For this urose we use the method of Lagrange multiliers for finding the local minima of 3.6) w.r.t. z. Consider the functions fw,z) := w,w +b w,z z,w γ, gz) := z 1 = 0

9 9 for every fixed w R N with w = 1. The otimization roblem is to minimize fw,z) w.r.t. z R N subject to the constraint gz) = We introduce a new variable µ R, called the Lagrange multilier, and define the Lagrange function Lagrangian) Λ : R N R R, Λz,µ) := fz,w)+µgz). The solution of the minimization roblem corresonds to a critical oint of the Lagrange function. necessary condition for critical oints of Λ is that the Jacobian vanishes, i.e. J Λ z,µ) = 0. This leads to the equations 3.10) 3.11) b z,w w+b w,z w +µz = 0, z 1 = 0, i.e. every local minimizer z satisfies 3.10) and 3.11).. Multilying 3.10) from the left by z T and using 3.11) we obtain 0 = b z,w w,z +µ z = bαβ +µ, and thus µ = bαβ, whereα := z,w and β := w,z are still to be determined. Now, inserting µ = bαβ into 3.10) and dividing both sides by b 0 we obtain 3.1) αw+βw αβz = 0. From 3.1) we deduce that if α = 0 then β = 0 and vice versa. If α = β = 0 then z {w,w} and the minimum of fw,z) in z subject to gz) = 0 is w,w γ. In the following we consider the case α 0 and β 0 and we show that in this case the minimum of fw, z) in z subject to gz) = 0 is even smaller. Note that, assuming α 0 and β 0, 3.1) yields the following reresentation for z 3.13) z = 1 αβ αw+βw) = 1 β w+ 1 α w, We now look for ossible solutions for α and β. 3. Multilying 3.1) from the left by w T and using w = 1 we obtain 3.14) 0 = α w +β w,w αβ w,z = α+βq αβ, where q := w,w. Multilying 3.1) from the left by w) T we obtain 3.15) 0 = αβ w,w +β w,w αβ w,z = αq +βr α β, where r := w. From 3.6) with z := w we deduce that q > 0 since b > 1 and γ > 0. Moreover, we have r > 0: ssuming r = w = 0 yields w = 0 for some w = 1 which contradicts γ > 0, comare 3.6). Since r > 0, q > 0 and by assumtion α 0 and β 0, there exist four solutions of 3.14), 3.15) given by { ) )} rr q) r q rr +q) r +q 3.16) α,β),±, ±,±. r r Note, that r ± q > 0 and therefore α,β) 0,0). This follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and w = 1 ±q q = w,w < w w = r. Note that we have indeed a strict inequality since w and w are linearly indeendent by our subcase. 4. Instead of investigating whether the Hessian of f at these oints is ositive definite or not,

10 10 we evaluate the function f at the oints 3.13) with α, β) from 3.16) directly. First we observe that 3.17) fw,z) = w,w +b w,z z,w γ = q +bαβ γ. We now distinguish between the two cases b > 0 and b < 0. If b > 0 then the function fw,z) is minimal if sgnα = sgnβ and if b < 0 then fw,z) is minimal if sgnα = sgnβ. Therefore, for the choice of 3.18) α,β) = ±,± rr q) rr+q),± ) r q r r+q r ), b > 0,, b < 0, the term bαβ is negative and we have found the global minimum. Thus, for b > 0 we obtain rr q) r q 3.19) bαβ = b = b r q) = b r r+ b q < 0 and similarly for b < 0 we obtain rr +q) r +q 3.0) bαβ = b r min z R N z =1 fw,z) = min q +bαβ γ ) = z R N z =1 = b r+q) = b r+ b q < 0. Therefore, using 3.17), 3.19) and 3.0), the global minimum of fw,z) in z subject to the constraint gz) = 0 is given by 1+ b ) q b r γ for every fixed w R N with w = 1. In articular, defining 1 z,µ ) = β w+ 1 ) 3.1) α w, bαβ with α, β from 3.18). the above minimum is attained at z from 3.1) since fw) := fw,z ) = 1+ b ) 3.) q b r γ for every fixed w R N with w = 1. Taking 3.5) into account, 3.) must be nonnegative for every w R N with w = 1. This corresonds exactly 3.). Case : K = C). In this case we aly Case 1 with K = R). For this urose, we write From we deduce C N w = w 1 +iw = w1 w ) = w R R N, C N z = z 1 +iz = z1 z ) = z R R N, ) C N,N = 1 +i 1 = = R R N,N. 1 w,z = w 1,z 1 + w,z +i w 1,z w,z 1 ) Re w,z = w R,z R, Re w,w = w R, R w R, w = R w R.

11 11 Therefore, 3.5) translates into w R, R w R +b w R,z R z R, R w R γ w R,z R R N, z R = w R = 1. Due to Case 1 this is equivalent to 1+ b ) w R, R w R b Rw R γ w R R N, w R = 1, that translates back into 1+ b ) Re w,w b w γ w C N, w = 1, which roves the case K = C. b): We rove that 3.3) is equivalent to 3.3) is invertible and δ > 1 : +b) b Re w,w w w Then, by Definition.3 of the first antieigenvalue 3.3) is equivalent to 3.4) is invertible and δ > 1 : +b) b δ w K N, w 0, w 0. µ 1 ) δ. and, obviously, 3.4) is equivalent to 3.4). This comletes the roof. 3.3) =3.3): Multilying the numerator and the denominator by 1 w, allows us to consider 3.3) for w K N with w = 1 and w 0. Since is invertible, w 0 is satisfied for every w K N with w = 1. Multilying 3.3) by b w w and using the inequality w = 1 w 1 w we obtain 1+ b ) Re w,w b w w δ = b b w w + w w δ 1) b b w w w + 1 δ 1) = b w +γ, for every w K N with w = 1, where γ := b 1 1 δ 1). 3.3)= 3.3): Let λ j for j = 1,...,N denote the j-th eigenvalue corresonding to the j-th eigenvector v j with v j = 1 of the matrix. Then the multilication of 3.3) by +b imlies Reλ j = Reλ j v j = Re v j,v j Re v j,v j b +b v j γ +b > 0, thus Re σ) > 0 and hence, is invertible. Multilying 3.3) by b w we obtain +b) Re w,w γ b w b w +1 w KN, w = 1, w 0. Now, let w K N with w 0 and w 0, then = 1 and we further obtain w w +b) Re w,w b w w b where we used w w. γ +1 =: δ > 1 w K N, w 0, w 0,

12 1 4. Secial cases and exlicit reresentations of the first antieigenvalue n alication of Theorem 3.1 with b := and 1 < < imlies that the L -dissiativity condition 4) is equivalent to our new L -antieigenvalue condition 5) which states that the diffusion matrix is invertible and satisfies the L -antieigenvalue bound µ 1 ) > [0,1[, 1 < <. This lower -deendent bound for the first antieigenvalue of is equivalent to an uer - deendent bound for the real) angle of ) Φ R ) := cos 1 µ 1 )) < cos 1 ]0, π ], 1 < <. In this section we discuss several secial cases in which the first antieigenvalue of the matrixcan be given exlicitly. In addition, we analyze the geometric meaning of the L -antieigenvalue bound and investigate its behavior for 1 < <. Note that for general matrices one cannot exect that there is an exlicit exression for the first antieigenvalue µ 1 ) of a matrix. However, for certain classes of matrices it is ossible to derive a closed formula for µ 1 ) as it is shown in the following. These exlicit reresentations facilitate to check the validity of the L -antieigenvalue bound The scalar real case: Positivity). In the scalar real case = a R with K = R and N = 1) the statements 3.1) and 3.5) are equivalent, but they are in general not equivalent with 3.). In articular, there exists a constant γ a with 3.5) if and only if 1)a = 1+b)a > 0. Since b = with 1 < <, this is equivalent to a > 0, comare assumtion 5). Note that the scalar real case has not been treated in Theorem 3.1 and therefore, it has been analyzed here. We oint out that in this case the first antieigenvalue bound does not aear. 4.. The scalar comlex case: cone condition). In the scalar comlex case = α C with K = C and N = 1) there exists a constant γ α with 3.), b := and 1 < <, if and only if one of the following cone conditions hold 4.1) 4.) Imα < Reα, 1 ) ) 1 argα < cos 1 = arctan. This conditions will be discussed below for normal matrices in more details. Condition 4.1) has also been established in [4, Theorem ] for differential oerators with constant coefficients and in [4, Theorem 4] for differential oerators with variable coefficients but on bounded domains. Therefore, this result can be considered as an extension of [4] µ 1 ) for Hermitian ositive definite matrices. If is a Hermitian ositive definite matrix, then µ 1 ) is given by, [16, 7.4.P4], 4.3) µ 1 ) = 1 λ 1 λ N λ 1 +λ N ) = κ κ +1 = GeometricMeanλ 1,λ N ) rithmeticmeanλ 1,λ N ), where 0 < λ 1 λ λ N denote the real) ositive eigenvalues of and κ := λ N λ 1 denotes the sectral condition number of. In this case µ 1 ) is the quotient of the geometric

13 mean λ 1 λ N and the arithmetic mean ) 1 λ 1 +λ N of the smallest and largest eigenvalue of. 13 λ N u 1 + In articular, the equality µ 1 ) = Re w,w w is satisfied for the antieigenvector w = λ 1 u N, where u 1,u N K N are orthogonal vectors with u 1 = λ 1 u 1 and u N = λ N u N such that w = 1. This follows directly from the Greub-Rheinboldt inequality, [16, )], and can be found in [16, 7.4.P4] and [18, Corollary ]. Note that for 1 < < the L -antieigenvalue condition 5) and 4.3) imly 1 λ 1 λ N λ 1 +λ N ) = µ 1 ) > 1 1 ) λ 1 N) +λ < λ 1 λ N. The latter inequality also aears in [, Theorem 7], where the authors analyzed L -dissiativity of the differential oerator T Q v) for symmetric, ositive definite matrices Q R d,d. If we define q := for 1 < <, then q [0,1) and the L -antieigenvalue condition 5) with 4.3) is equivalent to q 1 q q < κ < q + 1 q q, for 0 < q < 1. Using the definition of q, this inequality imlies C L ) := ) < κ < ) =: C R ), for 1 < < and. These are lower and uer bounds for the sectral condition number of. Of course, since 0 < λ 1 λ λ N not only κ = λ N λ 1 but also λ j λ 1 must be contained in the oen interval C L ),C R )) for every 1 j N. The behavior of the constants C L ) and C R ) is deicted in Figure 4.1a). In articular, to satisfy this condition for arbitrary large, i.e. near, the matrix must be of the form = ai N for some 0 < a R. 10 Imλ 8 < < C L ), C R ) 6 4 PSfrag relacements 1 < < ) argλ = cos 1 Reλ a) b) Σ Figure 4.1. a) -deendent bounds C L red) and C R blue) for the sectral condition number of Hermitian ositive definite matrices, b) conic section for the antieigenvalue assumtion 5) for normal accretive matrices

14 µ 1 ) for normal accretive matrices. If is a normal accretive matrix, then µ 1 ) from 3.4) is given by µ 1 ) = mine F), where { } a j E := λ 1 j N, j a j a i ) a i λ ) j aj λ i F := λ j λ 0 < a j λ j ai λ j +aj λ i i λ i λ ) < 1, j a i a j ) 1 i,j N, λ i λ j, and λ j = a j +ib j with a j,b j R, 1 j N, denote the eigenvalues of. In articular, if 4.4) µ 1 ) = a j λ for some 1 j N, j then µ 1 ) = Re w,w w for an antieigenvector w K N with w j = 1 and w k = 0 for 1 k N with k j. Conversely, if a i λ ) j aj λ i 4.5) µ 1 ) = a j a i ) λ j λ for some 1 i,j N with λ i λ j, i then µ 1 ) = Re w,w w for an antieigenvector w K N with w i = a j λ j a i λ j +a j λ i λ ), w i λ j = a i λ i a j λ i +a i λ j λ j a i a j ) ) i λ j a i a j ) and w k = 0 for 1 k N with k i and k j. This result can be found in [13, Theorem 5.1], [14, Theorem 3.1], [8, Theorem 1.1] and [6, Theorem 1]. The roof in [13, Theorem 5.1] is based on an alication of the Lagrange multilier method in order to solve a minimization roblem. Furthermore, in [6] it was roved that the exression on the right hand side of 4.5) is an uer bound for µ 1 ). In [6] one can also find a geometric interretation of this equality by a semi-ellise. If µ 1 ) is given by 4.4) for some 1 j N, then the L -antieigenvalue condition 5) is equivalent to, comare 4.1), 4.6) Imλ j < Reλ j 1, 1 < <. This leads to a cone condition which ostulates that every eigenvalues of is even contained in a -deendent sector Σ in the oen right half-lane, called a conic section, { } Σ := λ C Imλ < Reλ 1 = { λ C argλ < cos 1 )}, 1 < <,

15 15 see Figure 4.1b). The oening angle argλ is close to 0 for small and large, i.e. close to 1 or, and it is π for =. Indeed, this is the same requirement as in the scalar comlex case, comare 4.) for N = 1 and b =. In articular, to satisfy the cone condition for arbitrary large, the matrix must be of the form = diaga 1,...,a N ) for some ositive a 1,...,a N R. If µ 1 ) is given by 4.5) for some 1 i,j N with λ i λ, j then the L -antieigenvalue condition 5) is equivalent to a j a i ) a i λ j a j λ ) i 4.7) λ j λ >, 1 < <. i We emhasize the following equalities from [13, Section 6] and [6] a j a i ) a i λ ) j aj λ i λ j λ i [ ) λ j ai λ ) ][ ) j λ i λ i λ i aj aj λ j λ j λ j = ) j 1 λ i λ = r i ρ ij r j )r j ρ ij r i )ρ ij ρ ij 1, λ i ) ai λ i ] where ρ ij := λ j λ i and r k := Re λ k λ k = a k for k = i,j. This relation is helful to verify, that all λ k airs of eigenvalues λ j and λ i satisfying 4.7) under the constraint from the definition of F) must belong to { a semi-ellise, } [6]. Moreover, note that in the scalar comlex case with = α C Reα we have E = α, F =, which imlies Reα α = µ 1 α) >. This is equivalent to 4.1) and also to 4.) µ 1 ) for arbitrary matrices. If is an arbitrary matrix, there are only aroximation results for µ 1 ). Such results are rather new in the literature and can be found in [7, Theorem ]. However, for an arbitrary given matrix it is also ossible to comute the first antieigenvalue and its corresonding antieigenvector directly. The comutation of antieigenvalues and antieigenvectors has been analyzed in [5, 4]. References [1] W.-J. Beyn and J. Lorenz. Nonlinear stability of rotating atterns. Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ., 54): , 008. []. Cialdea. Criteria for the L -dissiativity of artial differential oerators. In. Cialdea, P. Ricci, and F. Lanzara, editors, nalysis, Partial Differential Equations and lications, volume 193 of Oerator Theory: dvances and lications, ages Birkhäuser Basel, 009. [3]. Cialdea. The L P -dissiativity of artial differential oerators. Lect. Notes TICMI, 11:93, 010. [4]. Cialdea and V. Maz ya. Criterion for the L -dissiativity of second order differential oerators with comlex coefficients. J. Math. Pures l. 9), 848): , 005. [5]. Cialdea and V. Maz ya. Criteria for the L -dissiativity of systems of second order differential equations. Ric. Mat., 55):33 65, 006. [6] C. Davis. Extending the Kantorovi c inequality to normal matrices. Linear lgebra and its lications, 310): , [7] K. Gustafson. The angle of an oerator and ositive oerator roducts. Bull. mer. Math. Soc., 74:488 49, 1968.

16 16 [8] K. Gustafson. Positive noncommuting) oerator roducts and semi-grous. Math. Z., 105:160 17, [9] K. Gustafson. ntieigenvalue inequalities in oerator theory. In Inequalities, III Proc. Third Symos., Univ. California, Los ngeles, Calif., 1969; dedicated to the memory of Theodore S. Motzkin), ages cademic Press, New York, 197. [10] K. Gustafson. ntieigenvalues. Linear lgebra l., 08/09: , [11] K. Gustafson. Oerator trigonometry of iterative methods. Numer. Linear lgebra l., 44): , [1] K. Gustafson. ntieigenvalue analysis : with alications to numerical analysis, wavelets, statistics, quantum mechanics, finance and otimization. World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ [u.a.], 01. [13] K. Gustafson and M. Seddighin. ntieigenvalue bounds. J. Math. nal. l., 143):37 340, [14] K. Gustafson and M. Seddighin. note on total antieigenvectors. J. Math. nal. l., 178): , [15] K. E. Gustafson and D. K. M. Rao. Numerical range. Universitext. Sringer-Verlag, New York, The field of values of linear oerators and matrices. [16] R.. Horn and C. R. Johnson. Matrix analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge [u.a.],. ed. edition, 013. [17] M. G. Kreĭn. The angular localization of the sectrum of a multilicative integral in Hilbert sace. Funkcional. nal. i Priložen., 31):89 90, [18] B. Mirman. nti-eigenvalues: method of estimation and calculation. Linear lgebra l., 49:47 55, [19] D. Otten. Satial decay and sectral roerties of rotating waves in arabolic systems. PhD thesis, Bielefeld University, 014, Shaker Verlag, achen. [0] D. Otten. Exonentially weighted resolvent estimates for comlex Ornstein-Uhlenbeck systems. J. Evol. Equ., 015. [1] D. Otten. The Identification Problem for comlex-valued Ornstein-Uhlenbeck oerators in L R d,c N ). Sonderforschungsbereich 701, Prerint 14067, 015 submitted), htts:// [] K. Paul and G. Das. Symmetric antieigenvalues for normal oerators. Int. J. Math. nal. Ruse), 49-1):509 55, 010. [3] K. Paul, G. Das, and L. Debnath. Comutation of antieigenvalues of bounded linear oerators via centre of mass. arxiv: v5, 013. [4] M. Seddighin. Otimally rotated vectors. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci., 63): , 003. [5] M. Seddighin. Comutation of antieigenvalues. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci., 5):815 81, 005. [6] M. Seddighin. On the joint antieigenvalues of oerators in normal subalgebras. J. Math. nal. l., 311):61 71, 005. [7] M. Seddighin. roximations of antieigenvalue and antieigenvalue-tye quantities. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci., ages rt. ID 31814, 15, 01. [8] M. Seddighin and K. Gustafson. On the eigenvalues which exress antieigenvalues. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci., 10): , 005. [9] G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein. On the theory of the brownian motion. Phys. Rev., 36:83 841, Se 1930.