From HandWiki - Reading time: 10 min
In linear algebra, the Moore–Penrose inverse is a matrix that satisfies some but not necessarily all of the properties of an inverse matrix. This article collects together a variety of proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse.
Let be an m-by-n matrix over a field and be an n-by-m matrix over , where is either , the real numbers, or , the complex numbers. The following four criteria are called the Moore–Penrose conditions:
Given a matrix , there exists a unique matrix that satisfies all four of the Moore–Penrose conditions, which is called the Moore–Penrose inverse of .[1][2][3][4] Notice that is also the Moore–Penrose inverse of . That is, .
These results are used in the proofs below. In the following lemmas, A is a matrix with complex elements and n columns, B is a matrix with complex elements and n rows.
The assumption says that all elements of A*A are zero. Therefore,
Therefore, all equal 0 i.e. .
This is proved in a manner similar to the argument of Lemma 2 (or by simply taking the Hermitian conjugate).
Let be a matrix over or . Suppose that and are Moore–Penrose inverses of . Observe then that
Analogously we conclude that . The proof is completed by observing that then
The proof proceeds in stages.
For any , we define:
It is easy to see that is a pseudoinverse of (interpreted as a 1-by-1 matrix).
Let be an n-by-n matrix over with zeros off the diagonal. We define as an n-by-n matrix over with as defined above. We write simply for .
Notice that is also a matrix with zeros off the diagonal.
We now show that is a pseudoinverse of :
Let be an m-by-n matrix over with zeros off the main diagonal, where m and n are unequal. That is, for some when and otherwise.
Consider the case where . Then we can rewrite by stacking where is a square diagonal m-by-m matrix, and is the m-by-(n−m) zero matrix. We define as an n-by-m matrix over , with the pseudoinverse of defined above, and the (n−m)-by-m zero matrix. We now show that is a pseudoinverse of :
Existence for such that follows by swapping the roles of and in the case and using the fact that .
The singular value decomposition theorem states that there exists a factorization of the form
where:
Define as .
We now show that is a pseudoinverse of :
The proof works by showing that satisfies the four criteria for the pseudoinverse of . Since this amounts to just substitution, it is not shown here.
The proof of this relation is given as Exercise 1.18c in.[6]
and imply that .
and imply that .
and imply that .
and imply that .
This is the conjugate transpose of above.
This is the conjugate transpose of above.
The results of this section show that the computation of the pseudoinverse is reducible to its construction in the Hermitian case. It suffices to show that the putative constructions satisfy the defining criteria.
This relation is given as exercise 18(d) in,[6] for the reader to prove, "for every matrix A". Write . Observe that
Similarly, implies that i.e. .
Additionally, so .
Finally, implies that .
Therefore, .
This is proved in an analogous manner to the case above, using Lemma 2 instead of Lemma 3.
For the first three proofs, we consider products C = AB.
If has orthonormal columns i.e. then . Write . We show that satisfies the Moore–Penrose criteria.
Therefore, .
If B has orthonormal rows i.e. then . Write . We show that satisfies the Moore–Penrose criteria.
Therefore,
Since has full column rank, is invertible so . Similarly, since has full row rank, is invertible so .
Write (using reduction to the Hermitian case). We show that satisfies the Moore–Penrose criteria.
Therefore, .
Here, , and thus and . We show that indeed satisfies the four Moore–Penrose criteria.
Therefore, . In other words:
and, since
Define and . Observe that . Similarly , and finally, and . Thus and are orthogonal projection operators. Orthogonality follows from the relations and . Indeed, consider the operator : any vector decomposes as
and for all vectors and satisfying and , we have
It follows that and . Similarly, and . The orthogonal components are now readily identified.
If belongs to the range of then for some , and . Conversely, if then so that belongs to the range of . It follows that is the orthogonal projector onto the range of . is then the orthogonal projector onto the orthogonal complement of the range of , which equals the kernel of .
A similar argument using the relation establishes that is the orthogonal projector onto the range of and is the orthogonal projector onto the kernel of .
Using the relations and it follows that the range of P equals the range of , which in turn implies that the range of equals the kernel of . Similarly implies that the range of equals the range of . Therefore, we find,
In the general case, it is shown here for any matrix that where . This lower bound need not be zero as the system may not have a solution (e.g. when the matrix A does not have full rank or the system is overdetermined).
To prove this, we first note that (stating the complex case), using the fact that satisfies and , we have
so that ( stands for the complex conjugate of the previous term in the following)
as claimed.
If is injective i.e. one-to-one (which implies ), then the bound is attained uniquely at .
The proof above also shows that if the system is satisfiable i.e. has a solution, then necessarily is a solution (not necessarily unique). We show here that is the smallest such solution (its Euclidean norm is uniquely minimum).
To see this, note first, with , that and that . Therefore, assuming that , we have
Thus
with equality if and only if , as was to be shown.
An immediate consequence of this result is that is also the uniquely smallest solution to the least-squares minimization problem for all , including when is neither injective nor surjective. It can be shown that the least-squares approximation is unique. Thus it is necessary and sufficient for all that solve the least-squares minimization to satisfy . This system always has a solution (not necessarily unique) as lies in the column space of . From the above result the smallest which solves this system is .