Total nonnegativity of GCD matrices and kernels
Dominique Guillot, Jiaru Wu

TL;DR
This paper characterizes when GCD matrices are totally nonnegative or positive, revealing they are never TP for size three or more, but are TN under specific prime factorization monotonicity conditions.
Contribution
It provides a complete characterization of totally nonnegative GCD matrices, linking their properties to prime factorization patterns and Green's matrices.
Findings
GCD matrices are never TP for n ≥ 3.
GCD matrices are TN if and only if all 2x2 minors are nonnegative.
TN GCD matrices correspond to monotonic prime exponents in factorization.
Abstract
Let be a vector of distinct positive integers. The matrix , where denotes the greatest common divisor of and , is called the greatest common divisor (GCD) matrix on . By a surprising result of Beslin and Ligh [Linear Algebra and Appl. 118], all GCD matrices are positive definite. In this paper, we completely characterize the GCD matrices satisfying the stronger property of being totally nonnegative (TN) or totally positive (TP). As we show, a GCD matrix is never TP when , and is TN if and only if it is , i.e., all its minors are nonnegative. We next demonstrate that a GCD matrix is if and only if the exponents of each prime divisor in the prime factorization of the s form a monotonic sequence. Reformulated in the language of…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Topics in Algebra · graph theory and CDMA systems · Algebraic structures and combinatorial models
Total nonnegativity of GCD matrices and kernels
Dominique Guillot
and
Jiaru Wu
Abstract.
Let be a vector of distinct positive integers. The matrix , where denotes the greatest common divisor of and , is called the greatest common divisor (GCD) matrix on . By a surprising result of Beslin and Ligh [Linear Algebra and Appl. 118], all GCD matrices are positive definite. In this paper, we completely characterize the GCD matrices satisfying the stronger property of being totally nonnegative (TN) or totally positive (TP). As we show, a GCD matrix is never TP when , and is TN if and only if it is , i.e., all its minors are nonnegative. We next demonstrate that a GCD matrix is if and only if the exponents of each prime divisor in the prime factorization of the s form a monotonic sequence. Reformulated in the language of kernels, our results characterize the subsets of integers over which the kernel is totally nonnegative. The proofs of our characterizations depend on Gantmacher and Krein’s notion of a Green’s matrix. We conclude by showing that a GCD matrix is TN if and only if it is a Green’s matrix. As a consequence, we obtain explicit formulas for all the minors and for the inverse of totally nonnegative GCD matrices.
Key words and phrases:
Greatest common divisor matrix, GCD matrix, totally nonnegative matrix, totally positive matrix, Green’s matrix
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
15B48, 11C20, 11A05, 15A15
1. Introduction and Main Results
We begin by setting some notation. We denote the set of positive and non-negative integers by and respectively. Given two integers , we write if divides , i.e., if for some . We denote the greatest common divisor of two integers by . More generally, we denote by the greatest common divisor of .
1.1. GCD matrices
Definition 1.1**.**
Let be a vector of positive integers. The matrix where is called the greatest common divisor (GCD) matrix on .
The study of GCD matrices goes back to 1875, when H. J. S. Smith [33] was able to compute the determinant of :
[TABLE]
where denotes Euler’s totient function. Almost 150 years later, these matrices and their generalizations continue to attract the attention of number theorists and linear algebraists (see e.g. [1, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 30, 34] and the references therein). Of particular interest is a surprising result of Beslin and Ligh which shows that GCD matrices are always positive definite.
Theorem 1.2** (Beslin and Ligh [8, Theorem 2]).**
Let be a vector of distinct positive integers. Then the GCD matrix is positive definite.
Indeed, let be a set containing and all the divisors of the integers in . Define a matrix by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and where is Euler’s totient function. By a direct calculation,
[TABLE]
The last equality follows from the well-known identity . Hence and so positive semidefinite. A refined analysis of the rank of the previous matrices shows that is also non-singular (see [8] for the details).
Remark 1.3**.**
Notice that if the s are not distinct in Theorem 1.2, the matrix is still positive semidefinite, but is singular.
The main goal of the paper is to determine which GCD matrices satisfy the stronger property of being totally nonnegative.
1.2. Main results
Recall that a real symmetric matrix is positive definite (resp. semidefinite) if and only if its principal minors are positive (resp. nonnegative). A stronger notion is that of totally positive (resp. nonnegative) matrices, where all minors are required to be positive (resp. nonnegative). These matrices arise in several areas including approximation theory [15], cluster algebras [6, 12, 13], combinatorics [9, 10], integrable systems [22, 21], network analysis [29], oscillatory matrices [2], and representation theory [26, 25, 31].
More precisely, let , and let . We denote by the submatrix of with row indices in and column indices in , i.e.,
[TABLE]
When , we let to simplify the notation.
Definition 1.4**.**
Let . The matrix is said to be:
- •
totally nonnegative if for all with .
- •
totally positive if for all with .
- •
if all minors of of size are nonnegative.
We write , , or to denote the fact that is TN, TP, or , respectively.
Following Beslin and Ligh’s result (Theorem 1.2), it is natural to examine which GCD matrices are totally nonnegative or totally positive. Our first main result shows that a GCD matrix is if and only if it is .
Theorem 1.5** (Main Result 1).**
Let and let . Then the following are equivalent for the GCD matrix :
- (1)
* is .* 2. (2)
* is .* 3. (3)
For ,
- (a)
* and* 2. (b)
. 4. (4)
For , .
Moreover, the above conditions imply that for all ,
[TABLE]
As a consequence, we immediately obtain that no GCD matrix is TP when .
Corollary 1.7**.**
Let and let . Then is not TP.
Proof.
Observe that Equation (1.6) can equivalently be formulated as
[TABLE]
Hence a GCD matrix cannot be when . ∎
While Theorem 1.5 reduces verifying the total nonnegativity of GCD matrices to computing minors, it is not clear a priori which vectors yield TN matrices . Our second main result provides an explicit description of these vectors. To state the result, we use the following notation. Let denote the list of all prime numbers in increasing order. For a given integer , we denote by the power of occurring in the prime factorization of . By convention, we set if does not divide . Hence, for every ,
[TABLE]
where only finitely many terms in the product are not equal to .
Theorem 1.10** (Main Result 2).**
Let and let . Then the following are equivalent for the GCD matrix :
- (1)
* is totally nonnegative.* 2. (2)
For each , the sequence is monotonic.
Here, by a monotonic sequence, we mean a sequence that is either non-decreasing or non-increasing.
The proof of Theorems 1.5 and 1.10 depend heavily on the notion of Green’s matrices, a notion first introduced by Gantmacher and Krein [14] in their study of oscillatory matrices 111Gantmacher and Krein used the terminology single-pair matrices instead of Green’s matrices..
Definition 1.11** (see Karlin [20, Chapter 3, §3], Gantmacher and Krein [14, Chapter 2, §3]).**
A matrix is said to be a Green’s matrix (or a single-pair matrix) if
[TABLE]
for some .
Our last characterization of totally nonnegative GCD matrices directly involves such matrices.
Theorem 1.12** (Main Result 3).**
Let and let . Then the following are equivalent for the GCD matrix :
- (1)
* is totally nonnegative.* 2. (2)
* is a Green’s matrix.*
If the s are distinct, then and are equivalent to
- (3)
* is tridiagonal with nonzero superdiagonal elements.*
Moreover, suppose and let and be two subsets of . If for all , then we have
[TABLE]
where and . In all other cases, we have . Also, if is non-singular, then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: we begin by examining the total nonnegativity of GCD matrices in Section 2. The proof of our main results are then given in Section 3. Section 4 concludes the paper by examining the total nonnegativity of the kernel , as well as total nonnegativity preservers on GCD matrices.
2. The case
We begin by examining Theorem 1.5 in the case where .
Proposition 2.1**.**
Let be distinct positive integers with greatest common divisor , and let . Then the following are equivalent:
- (1)
* is totally nonnegative* 2. (2)
* and .* 3. (3)
.
The following simple lemma will be useful to prove Proposition 2.1.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be distinct positive integer. Then
[TABLE]
Moreover, equality holds in Equation (2.3) if and only if .
Proof.
Let . Suppose first . If is a prime such that then . Also or but not both since . It follows that . Equality holds if and only if every divisor of divides or , i.e., if and only if . This proves the result when . The general case follows by replacing by . ∎
Proof of Proposition 2.1.
To simplify the notation, let :
[TABLE]
Suppose . Since the minor of is nonnegative, we obtain that
[TABLE]
Conversely, by Lemma 2.2, . It follows that and . By the equality case in Lemma 2.2, we conclude that . This proves (2).
Suppose (2) holds. By the equality case in Lemma 2.2, we have
[TABLE]
Condition (3) now follows from the assumption that .
Suppose now that (3) holds. By Theorem 1.2, all principal minors of are nonnegative. Let us examine the remaining minors of . By symmetry, there are exactly cases to consider:
Case 1. . We have
[TABLE]
Hence, by assumption.
Case 2. . In that case,
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.2, we have . Hence .
Case 3. . In that case,
[TABLE]
As in Case 2, by Lemma 2.2, we have . Thus .
We therefore conclude that is . ∎
Remark 2.4**.**
Notice that the implication in Proposition 2 shows that
[TABLE]
One can also, of course, proves this directly: suppose . Then there exists a prime such that , but . Thus , but .
3. Proof of the Main Results
Before we proceed to the proofs of our main results, we recall some important properties of Green’s matrices.
Theorem 3.1** (see Karlin [20, Chapter 3, Theorem 3.1]).**
A Green’s matrix is TN if and only if all the numbers have the same strict sign and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any two subsets and of , we have
[TABLE]
where and provided for all . In all other cases, .
Theorem 3.3** (Gantmacher and Krein, see [4, Theorem 2]).**
A matrix is a nonsingular Green’s matrix if and only if its inverse is a symmetric tridiagonal matrix with nonzero superdiagonal elements.
Using Equation (3.2), one can compute the minors of a Green’s matrix, and obtain and explicit formula for its inverse via Cramer’s rule.
Theorem 3.4** (see e.g. Yamamoto [35]).**
Let be a non-singular Green’s matrix. Then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
With the above results in hand, we can now prove our first main result.
Proof of Theorem 1.5.
To simplify the notation, let .
Suppose and consider the submatrix . By assumption . Moreover, by Theorem 1.2 and Remark 1.3, and so . Properties now follow immediately from Proposition 2.1(2).
This follows from the equivalence in Proposition 2.1.
Suppose holds and let . Then
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
It follows that is a Green’s matrix with and . Hence, by Theorem 3.1, the matrix is TN if and only if
[TABLE]
for all . By Remark 2.4, we have . It follows that for all ,
[TABLE]
Thus, and and so Equation (3.6) always holds. We therefore conclude that .
Clearly, we have and so the four statements are equivalent.
Finally, suppose . Proceeding as above, we have
[TABLE]
as claimed. ∎
We now prove our second main result, which provides an explicit characterization of the vectors for which the matrix is TN.
Proof of Theorem 1.10.
As above, set . By Theorem 1.5(3), if and only if and for all . Using the notation in Equation (1.9), these two conditions are equivalent to
[TABLE]
for all . Hence, if and only if for all and all ,
[TABLE]
For , define a vector
[TABLE]
and let . Observe that by Equation (3.9) and the above arguments,
[TABLE]
It therefore suffices to resolve the case where all the integers are powers of a given prime . Hence, assume for some prime and some integers (not necessarily all distinct). We claim that the matrix is TN if and only if the sequence is monotonic. Indeed, suppose and let . By Equation (3.9), we have
[TABLE]
We consider two cases:
Case 1. If , then we obtain from the right hand-side of Equation (3.10) that , a contradiction. Thus and the right hand-side of (3.10) implies that .
Case 2. . Similarly, if , then the left hand-side of Equation (3.10) implies that , a contradiction. Thus and the right hand-side of (3.10) now implies that .
It follows easily from the above analysis that the sequence is monotonic.
Conversely, if the sequence is monotonic, then it satisfies Equation (3.10) and it follows that the . ∎
As showed in the proof of Theorem 1.5, a totally nonnegative GCD matrix is necessarily a Green’s matrix (see Equation (3.5)). Our last result show that the converse also holds.
Proof of Theorem 1.12.
As before, let to simplify the notation.
This was already shown in the proof of Theorem 1.5 (see Equation (3.5)).
Suppose is a Green’s matrix with entries
[TABLE]
Then for ,
[TABLE]
Thus, by Theorem 1.5(4), the matrix is TN.
This is Gantmacher and Krein’s result (see Theorem 3.3).
The expressions for the minors and the inverse of are immediate consequences of Theorems 3.1 and 3.4 applied with as given after Equation (3.5). ∎
4. Totally nonnegative kernels
A natural reformulation of the above results involves the notion of positive semidefinite and totally nonnegative kernels.
Definition 4.1** (see Karlin [20]).**
Let . The kernel is said to be
- (1)
positive semidefinite if the matrix is positive semidefinite for any choice of integers in and any . 2. (2)
totally nonnegative if the matrix is totally nonnegative for any choice of integers in and any .
Positive definite and totally positive kernels are defined analogously.
Remark 4.2**.**
More generally, for any totally ordered sets and , the kernel is said to be totally nonnegative if the matrix is totally nonnegative for any choice of in , any choice of in , and any . In what follows, we restrict ourselves to the case where .
Observe that, in the language of kernels, Beslin and Leigh’s result (Theorem 1.2) shows that the kernel
[TABLE]
is positive definite on (and hence on any subset of ). Theorem 1.10 resolves the analogous problem for total nonnegativity. For simplicity, we only state the result in the case where the cardinality of is infinite.
Theorem 4.3**.**
Let be an increasing sequence of positive integers and let . Then the following are equivalent:
- (1)
The kernel is totally nonnegative on . 2. (2)
For each , the sequence is monotonic.
Having characterized the sets over which the kernel is totally nonnegative, it is natural to examine how such kernels can be transformed while remaining totally nonnegative. More specifically, we are seeking functions with the property that is totally nonnegative on whenever is. The following result from [5] shows that for general kernels, not many functions have this property.
Theorem 4.4** ([5, Theorem 2.1]).**
Let be a function and let , where and are positive integers. The following are equivalent.
- (1)
* preserves TN when applied entrywise on matrices.* 2. (2)
* preserves TN when applied entrywise on matrices.* 3. (3)
* is either a non-negative constant or*
- (a)
* ;* 2. (b)
* for some and some ;* 3. (c)
* for some and some ;* 4. (d)
* for some .*
As we now show, the situation is very different for the kernel. Recall that an arithmetic function is said to be multiplicative if whenever .
Theorem 4.5**.**
Let and assume the kernel is totally nonnegative on . Suppose satisfies
- (1)
* is multiplicative, and* 2. (2)
* for every such that .*
Then is totally nonnegative on .
Proof.
Let be a finite subset of . Since is on , the matrix is . By Theorem 1.12, the matrix is a Green’s matrix
[TABLE]
with and – see Equation (3.5). Using Equations (3.7) and (3.8), it follows easily that
[TABLE]
Thus, by Assumption (1) of the theorem, we obtain that
[TABLE]
where and . Since is , we have by Theorem 3.1 that
[TABLE]
Now, using Equations (3.7) and (3.8), it follows that for
[TABLE]
Hence, by Assumption (2) of the theorem, we conclude that and , and therefore that
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.1 now shows that the matrix with entries is . Since this is true for any choice of the s, we conclude that is . ∎
Note that in Theorem 4.5, we assume that only if . Interestingly, if we assume is both multiplicative and non-decreasing on , then for some . This remarkable result goes back to Erdős [11]. Several authors also found simpler proofs of the result, including Moser and Lambek [28], Besicovitch [7], Schoenberg [32], and Howe [18]. Erdős’s original result is stated in terms of additive functions instead of multiplicative ones.
Theorem 4.6** (see [11, Theorem XI]).**
Let satisfy whenever , and for all . Then for some constant .
In contrast, the weaker hypothesis in Theorem 4.5 is satisfied for much more than power functions. For example, it is satisfied by Euler’s totient function .
Corollary 4.7**.**
Let and assume the kernel is totally nonnegative on . Then the kernel is totally nonnegative.
Proof.
That Euler’s totient function is multiplicative is well-known (see e.g. [3, Theorem 6.4]). To verify the second assumption of Theorem 4.5, first observe that for any prime number ,
[TABLE]
Using the multiplicativity of , it follows easily that if . ∎
Acknowledgement. D.G. is partially supported by a University of Delaware Research Foundation grant, by a Simons Foundation collaboration grant for mathematicians, and by a University of Delaware Research Foundation Strategic Initiative grant. J.W. is partially supported by the Summer Scholars Program of the University of Delaware.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Ercan Altınışık, Mehmet Yıldız, and Ali Keskin. Non-divisibility of lcm matrices by gcd matrices on gcd-closed sets. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 516:47–68, 2017.
- 2[2] Tsuyoshi Ando. Totally positive matrices. Linear algebra and its applications , 90:165–219, 1987.
- 3[3] George E. Andrews. Number theory . Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1994.
- 4[4] Wayne W Barrett. A theorem on inverse of tridiagonal matrices. Linear Algebra and Its Applications , 27:211–217, 1979.
- 5[5] Alexander Belton, Dominique Guillot, Apoorva Khare, and Mihai Putinar. Total-positivity preservers. preprint (ar Xiv:1711.10468) , 2017.
- 6[6] Arkady Berenstein, Sergey Fomin, and Andrei Zelevinsky. Parametrizations of canonical bases and totally positive matrices. Advances in mathematics , 122(1):49–149, 1996.
- 7[7] A. S. Besicovitch. On additive functions of a positive integer. Studies in Mathematical Analysis and Related Topics, Stanford University Press, California , pages 38–41, 1962.
- 8[8] Scott Beslin and Steve Ligh. Greatest common divisor matrices. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 118:69–76, 1989.
