Skip to main content
added 24 characters in body
Source Link
Arturo Magidin
  • 404.6k
  • 57
  • 833
  • 1.1k

In my linear algebra course, we defined the positive definite of the inner product where $<z,z> \:\ge 0$$\langle z,z\rangle \ge 0$. My professor stated that because of this $<z,z> \notin\mathbb{C}$$\langle z,z\rangle \notin\mathbb{C}$?

What is the definition of a positive so that they do not exist for complex numbers? Could you not simply form a definition of magnitude? Why is this definition not useful so that the value of the inner product is restricted to $\mathbb{R}$?

In my linear algebra course, we defined the positive definite of the inner product where $<z,z> \:\ge 0$. My professor stated that because of this $<z,z> \notin\mathbb{C}$?

What is the definition of a positive so that they do not exist for complex numbers? Could you not simply form a definition of magnitude? Why is this definition not useful so that the value of the inner product is restricted to $\mathbb{R}$?

In my linear algebra course, we defined the positive definite of the inner product where $\langle z,z\rangle \ge 0$. My professor stated that because of this $\langle z,z\rangle \notin\mathbb{C}$?

What is the definition of a positive so that they do not exist for complex numbers? Could you not simply form a definition of magnitude? Why is this definition not useful so that the value of the inner product is restricted to $\mathbb{R}$?

Source Link

Positive definite (inner product)

In my linear algebra course, we defined the positive definite of the inner product where $<z,z> \:\ge 0$. My professor stated that because of this $<z,z> \notin\mathbb{C}$?

What is the definition of a positive so that they do not exist for complex numbers? Could you not simply form a definition of magnitude? Why is this definition not useful so that the value of the inner product is restricted to $\mathbb{R}$?