Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-01
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Symmetric positive-definite preconditioning preserves a Hermitian positive-definite CG problem, and the CG bound uses the transformed condition number

Statement

Let A∈Mn(C) be Hermitian positive definite, let x∗ solve Ax=b, and let M be Hermitian positive definite. Write M=CC∗, and define

A~:=C−1AC−∗,b~:=C−1b,y:=C∗x,y∗:=C∗x∗.

Then A~ is Hermitian positive definite, the transformed system

A~y=b~

is equivalent to Ax=b, and

∥y−y∗∥A~=∥x−x∗∥A.

Consequently, if

κ:=λmax⁡(A~)λmin⁡(A~),

then exact-arithmetic CG on the transformed system obeys

∥y∗−ym∥A~≤2(κ−1κ+1)m∥y∗−y0∥A~,

which is the preconditioned CG bound.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A Hermitian positive-definite matrix A, a Hermitian positive-definite preconditioner M, and the symmetric transform A~=C−1AC−∗.

[F1]

Symmetric preconditioning uses the variable change y=C∗x coming from a Cholesky factorization M=CC∗ (Left preconditioning, right preconditioning, and symmetric preconditioning of a linear system).

[L1]

Equivalent preconditioned systems have the transformed residual and error maps recorded explicitly (Invertible preconditioners give equivalent linear systems, with the transformed residuals and errors written explicitly).

[L2]

A Hermitian positive-definite matrix has a Cholesky factorization M=CC∗ with invertible C (A matrix admits a Cholesky factorisation with positive diagonal exactly when it is Hermitian positive definite, and that factor is unique).

[L3]

CG obeys the Chebyshev A-norm bound with the spectral condition number of its Hermitian positive-definite coefficient matrix (CG obeys the Chebyshev A-norm bound in terms of the spectral condition number κ2(A)).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L2algebra

By [L2], the preconditioner has a factorization M=CC∗ with invertible C. For any nonzero z, z∗A~z=(C−∗z)∗A(C−∗z)>0, because C−∗z≠0 and A is Hermitian positive definite. Also A~∗=(C−1AC−∗)∗=C−1A∗C−∗=C−1AC−∗=A~. So A~ is Hermitian positive definite.

2.1F1L1step 1.1algebra

By [F1] and [L1], the transformed system A~y=b~ is equivalent to Ax=b, and its transformed error is esym=y−y∗=C∗(x−x∗). Therefore ∥y−y∗∥A~2=(y−y∗)∗A~(y−y∗)=(x−x∗)∗A(x−x∗)=∥x−x∗∥A2. Hence the energy norms agree under the symmetric change of variables.

3.1L3step 1.1step 2.1∎

Since step 1.1 shows that A~ is Hermitian positive definite, [L3] applies to the transformed system and gives ∥y∗−ym∥A~≤2(κ−1κ+1)m∥y∗−y0∥A~, where κ=λmax⁡(A~)/λmin⁡(A~) is the spectral ratio from the Statement. By step 2.1, this is exactly the preconditioned CG estimate expressed in the original variables. The bound depends on the transformed operator A~, not on κ2(A) by itself.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

12 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources