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.
Conjugate Gradients, MINRES and Preconditioning
1 · Prerequisites
- Algebraic Closure, Embeddings, and Separability
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Composition Series, the Jordan–Hölder Theorem and Solvable Groups
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Cyclic Groups and Direct Products
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Diagonalisation and the Minimal Polynomial
- Direct Matrix Factorisations: LU, Cholesky and QR
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Dual Spaces, Bilinear and Quadratic Forms, and Sylvester's Law of Inertia
- Eigenvalue Iterations and the QR Algorithm
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Inner Product Spaces, Gram-Schmidt, Projections and Adjoints
- Krylov Subspaces, Arnoldi and GMRES
- Limits of Real Functions
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Splitting Fields
- Suprema and Infima
- Sylow's Theorems, p-Groups and Nilpotent Groups
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The Determinant of a Linear Operator, Cofactors and Cramer's Rule
- The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
- The Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups
- The Galois Correspondence
- The Spectral Theorem, Positive Operators and Singular Value Decomposition
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
This page follows the Hermitian Krylov route that the preceding Arnoldi and GMRES page leaves open. It begins with the quadratic energy behind conjugate gradients, identifies the Galerkin condition that characterizes the affine Krylov iterate, and then proves the exact-arithmetic CG structure: positivity of the denominators, residual orthogonality, -conjugacy, finite termination, and the standard Chebyshev bound.
The second half specializes Arnoldi to Lanczos, defines MINRES from the tridiagonal least-squares problem, and closes with stationary splittings and preconditioning. The page keeps the central trap explicit: CG needs Hermitian positive definiteness, while MINRES needs only Hermitian structure and preconditioning must be analyzed through the transformed operator rather than praised generically.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
The energy inner product and energy norm for a Hermitian positive-definite matrix
Definition
Let be Hermitian positive definite in the sense of Hermitian positive-definite matrices and Cholesky factorisation A = LL* with positive diagonal. For vectors , define the energy inner product
where is the standard coordinate inner product of The standard formulas on and on are inner products. Because is Hermitian positive definite, this is an inner product on , and its induced norm
is the energy norm of .
Equivalently, if is the Cholesky factorization from Hermitian positive-definite matrices and Cholesky factorisation A = LL* with positive diagonal, then and .
The quadratic energy of a Hermitian positive-definite linear system
Definition
Let be Hermitian positive definite, and let . The quadratic energy of the linear system is the real-valued function
where the coordinate inner product is the one from The standard formulas on and on are inner products. The diagonal term is real because by The energy inner product and energy norm for a Hermitian positive-definite matrix.
For Hermitian positive-definite , the exact solution of is the unique minimizer of the quadratic energy
Statement
Let be Hermitian positive definite, let , and let be the quadratic energy from The quadratic energy of a Hermitian positive-definite linear system. Then the system has a unique solution , and for every one has
In particular, is the unique minimizer of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian positive-definite matrix , a vector , and the quadratic energy .
The quadratic energy is (The quadratic energy of a Hermitian positive-definite linear system).
The energy norm is defined by for Hermitian positive-definite (The energy inner product and energy norm for a Hermitian positive-definite matrix).
A matrix is Hermitian positive definite if and only if it has a Cholesky factorization with positive diagonal, and that factor is unique (A matrix admits a Cholesky factorisation with positive diagonal exactly when it is Hermitian positive definite, and that factor is unique).
Proof
By [L2], there is a lower-triangular matrix with positive diagonal such that . Hence and are invertible, so is invertible and the system has the unique solution .
Since , [F1] gives Because is Hermitian, is the complex conjugate of , so the real part in parentheses vanishes. Therefore
By [L1], the quantity is nonnegative and is zero only when . Step 2.1 therefore shows for every , with equality only at . Hence is the unique minimizer of .
The th Krylov Galerkin iterate in the affine space for a Hermitian positive-definite system
Definition
Let be Hermitian positive definite, let , let be an initial guess, and put
For , an element is the th Krylov Galerkin iterate when its residual
is orthogonal to in the standard inner product. The next proposition identifies this residual condition with -orthogonality of the error .
Galerkin orthogonality turns residual orthogonality into -orthogonality of the error, and the Galerkin iterate is unique
Statement
Let be Hermitian positive definite, let , let be an initial guess, let , let be the exact solution of , and let . Then the following are equivalent:
- is orthogonal to in the standard inner product.
- is orthogonal to in the energy inner product.
When these conditions hold, the vector is the unique element of with that property.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian positive-definite system , an initial guess , , the exact solution , and a vector .
A Krylov Galerkin iterate is an element of whose residual is orthogonal to (The th Krylov Galerkin iterate in the affine space for a Hermitian positive-definite system).
The energy inner product is (The energy inner product and energy norm for a Hermitian positive-definite matrix).
Proof
For every , the identity gives by [L1]. Hence the residual is orthogonal to if and only if the error is -orthogonal to .
Suppose and both lie in and both satisfy the equivalent conditions from step 1.1. Then lies in , and both errors are -orthogonal to . Subtracting the two orthogonality relations gives Positive definiteness of the energy inner product therefore forces , so .
The conjugate-gradient recurrence
Definition
Let be Hermitian positive definite, let , and fix an initial guess . Set
For every index with , define
and then
This is the conjugate-gradient recurrence.
Before convergence, every CG denominator is positive
Statement
Assume the conjugate-gradient recurrence of The conjugate-gradient recurrence is defined through step for a Hermitian positive-definite matrix . If , then and
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian positive-definite system , a CG run through step , and a nonzero residual .
CG uses the recurrence with (The conjugate-gradient recurrence).
For Hermitian positive-definite , the energy norm satisfies and it is positive on nonzero vectors (The energy inner product and energy norm for a Hermitian positive-definite matrix).
Proof
We first show by induction on that . For this is immediate from in [F1]. If it holds at , then [F1] gives , so Thus the identity holds for every .
At , step 1.1 gives because . Hence . By [L1], which is the desired positivity of the denominator.
In exact arithmetic, CG residuals are mutually orthogonal and the search directions are -conjugate
Statement
Let be Hermitian positive definite, and run the conjugate-gradient recurrence in exact arithmetic. For all indices for which the quantities are defined,
Thus the residuals are mutually orthogonal and the search directions are -conjugate.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian positive-definite system and an exact-arithmetic CG run.
CG uses the recurrence with (The conjugate-gradient recurrence).
If , then (Before convergence, every CG denominator is positive).
The energy inner product is (The energy inner product and energy norm for a Hermitian positive-definite matrix).
Proof
We prove by induction on that are pairwise orthogonal and are pairwise -conjugate. For there is nothing to prove. Assume the claim through step . Because for and , the spans and agree for every .
For , the induction hypothesis and step 1.1 give using [L2], because lies in and is -conjugate to each of those earlier directions. Also, Since for , the induction hypothesis gives , and for the same identity is immediate. Using [F1], we obtain . Thus is orthogonal to every earlier residual.
For , Hermitian symmetry and [F1] give Because from [F1], step 2.1 implies , so . For , step 2.1 yields , hence Therefore because and by [F1], with positivity from [L1] ensuring these divisions are valid before convergence. This closes the induction.
CG is the Krylov Galerkin method, and the th iterate uniquely minimizes the -norm of the error over
Statement
Let be Hermitian positive definite, let , let be an initial guess, let be the exact solution of , and let be the th conjugate-gradient iterate with initial residual . Then is the unique Krylov Galerkin iterate in , and for every ,
with equality only when .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian positive-definite system , an initial guess , the exact solution , the initial residual , and the th CG iterate .
A Krylov Galerkin iterate is an element of whose residual is orthogonal to (The th Krylov Galerkin iterate in the affine space for a Hermitian positive-definite system).
Residual orthogonality to is equivalent to -orthogonality of the error, and such an iterate is unique (Galerkin orthogonality turns residual orthogonality into -orthogonality of the error, and the Galerkin iterate is unique).
In exact arithmetic, the residuals are mutually orthogonal and the search directions are -conjugate (In exact arithmetic, CG residuals are mutually orthogonal and the search directions are -conjugate).
For every , the energy identity is where is the quadratic energy (For Hermitian positive-definite , the exact solution of is the unique minimizer of the quadratic energy).
Proof
The CG recurrence gives as a linear combination of , so . Also each residual satisfies , so for , and each therefore also lies in . By [L2], the nonzero residuals are mutually orthogonal, hence linearly independent; since they all lie in the -generated space , they form a basis of that space, and so do by the triangular relation . Thus .
By [L2], the residual is orthogonal to each earlier residual. Since step 1.1 shows that form a basis of and each lies in , the same orthogonality implies is orthogonal to . Therefore is a Krylov Galerkin iterate by [F1], and [L1] makes it unique.
Let and put . By [L1] and step 2.1, the error is -orthogonal to , so Hence , with equality only if , that is, . Using [L3], this is equivalent to saying that also uniquely minimizes the quadratic energy over the same affine Krylov space.
In exact arithmetic, CG terminates no later than the relative grade and hence in at most steps
Statement
Let be Hermitian positive definite, let , let be an initial guess, let , and let be the grade of . Then exact-arithmetic conjugate gradients reaches the exact solution no later than step . In particular, , so CG terminates in at most steps.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian positive-definite system , an initial guess , the initial residual , the grade , and the exact solution .
The grade is the degree of the monic polynomial of least degree that annihilates , and it is when (The grade of a start vector and its relative minimal polynomial).
If is invertible, then the exact solution of lies in (If is invertible, the exact solution of lies in the Krylov space at the grade).
The th CG iterate uniquely minimizes the -norm of the error over (CG is the Krylov Galerkin method, and the th iterate uniquely minimizes the -norm of the error over ).
Proof
If , then , so CG has already reached the exact solution at step by [F1]. Assume now that . The initial error satisfies , so [L1] gives . Therefore
If CG has already reached at some step , then it has certainly terminated no later than step . Otherwise the recurrence defines the th iterate, so [L2] applies with . Since itself belongs to the admissible affine space from step 1.1 and has zero error, the minimal -norm error over that space is . Hence the unique minimizer is , so CG terminates no later than step .
Because is , the vectors are linearly dependent. Thus some nonzero polynomial of degree at most annihilates , and the minimal possible degree in [F1] therefore satisfies . Combining this with step 2.1 gives termination in at most steps.
CG obeys the Chebyshev -norm bound in terms of the spectral condition number
Statement
Let be Hermitian positive definite, let solve , let be the error in the th exact-arithmetic CG iterate, let be the smallest and largest eigenvalues of , and let
Then for every ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian positive-definite matrix , the exact solution , the CG iterates , the errors , and the extremal eigenvalues of .
The th CG iterate uniquely minimizes the -norm of the error over (CG is the Krylov Galerkin method, and the th iterate uniquely minimizes the -norm of the error over ).
In an orthonormal basis, a Hermitian matrix is normal (In an orthonormal basis, self-adjoint means conjugate-transpose symmetry and normal means commuting with the conjugate transpose).
A normal endomorphism of a finite-dimensional complex inner-product space has an orthonormal eigenbasis (Complex spectral theorem: a normal endomorphism of a finite-dimensional complex inner product space has an orthonormal eigenbasis, and conversely).
Proof
Every vector in has the form for some polynomial of degree at most , because . Hence every attainable error has the form where and . By [L1], the actual CG error therefore satisfies
Since is Hermitian, [L2] and [L3] give an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, so with unitary and , where each . Writing , one gets Thus
Let where is the th Chebyshev polynomial. Then , , and on , so With , the denominator equals . For , and at one has Therefore Combining this polynomial with step 2.1 gives the stated bound.
In floating-point arithmetic, CG can lose exact residual orthogonality, -conjugacy, and the finite-termination guarantee
Remark
The orthogonality and finite-termination theorems on this page are exact arithmetic statements. In floating-point arithmetic, rounding errors perturb the three-term recurrence, so later residuals need not remain exactly orthogonal and later search directions need not remain exactly -conjugate. Once those identities drift, the argument that forces termination by the relative grade no longer applies verbatim. Practical CG often still converges well, but the exact algebraic structure is only approximate.
The Lanczos process as Arnoldi specialized to a Hermitian matrix, with the usual real-subdiagonal phase convention
Definition
Let be Hermitian and let for a nonzero start vector . Running Arnoldi on is called the Lanczos process when one records the coefficients, at every step before Arnoldi breakdown, in the three-term form
with and the phase of chosen so that is real. In matrix form this is the Hermitian specialization of The Arnoldi process for building an orthonormal basis of a Krylov subspace.
With a Hermitian matrix, Arnoldi collapses to the Lanczos three-term recurrence and a real symmetric tridiagonal projection
Statement
Let be Hermitian, and run Arnoldi on through step without breakdown. Write
Then there exist real numbers and nonnegative real numbers such that
Moreover, is a real symmetric tridiagonal matrix.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian matrix and an Arnoldi run through step without breakdown.
The Lanczos process is Arnoldi specialized to a Hermitian matrix, with the phase chosen so that the subdiagonal coefficients are real and nonnegative (The Lanczos process as Arnoldi specialized to a Hermitian matrix, with the usual real-subdiagonal phase convention).
Arnoldi yields an orthonormal basis and an upper-Hessenberg factorization with column relations (Before breakdown, Arnoldi produces an orthonormal Krylov basis and a rectangular upper-Hessenberg factorization).
An upper-Hessenberg matrix has for , and a real symmetric tridiagonal matrix has zeros whenever (Upper Hessenberg matrices and real symmetric tridiagonal matrices).
Proof
Fix and let . By [L1], lies in , which is orthogonal to . Since is Hermitian, Together with the upper-Hessenberg zero pattern from [L2], this shows that the only possibly nonzero coefficients in column are , , and . Therefore each Arnoldi column relation collapses to a three-term recurrence.
Hermitian symmetry also gives . Under the phase convention in [F1], the subdiagonal coefficients are real and nonnegative; write and . Since equals its own complex conjugate, each is real. Hence which is the Lanczos recurrence.
The projected matrix is . Step 1.1 shows for , and Hermitian symmetry together with the reality from step 2.1 shows on the remaining bands. Thus is a real symmetric tridiagonal matrix in the sense of [L2].
The MINRES iterate from the Lanczos tridiagonal least-squares problem
Definition
Let be Hermitian, let be an initial guess for , let , and put . Assume Lanczos runs through step without breakdown and yields
with tridiagonal in the sense of With a Hermitian matrix, Arnoldi collapses to the Lanczos three-term recurrence and a real symmetric tridiagonal projection. A vector
is an th MINRES iterate when minimizes
over all . Such a minimizer exists by For a linear map between finite-dimensional inner-product spaces, minimises if and only if , equivalently ; minimisers exist and any two differ by an element of .
For Hermitian , including the indefinite case, MINRES minimizes the Euclidean residual over
Statement
Let be Hermitian, let be an initial guess for , let , and let be an th MINRES iterate from the Lanczos tridiagonal least-squares problem. Then
This remains valid when is Hermitian indefinite.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian matrix , an initial guess , the residual , and an th MINRES iterate .
A MINRES iterate has the form , where minimizes for the Lanczos tridiagonalization (The MINRES iterate from the Lanczos tridiagonal least-squares problem).
For Hermitian , Arnoldi collapses to the Lanczos factorization with tridiagonal (With a Hermitian matrix, Arnoldi collapses to the Lanczos three-term recurrence and a real symmetric tridiagonal projection).
Arnoldi reduces GMRES to the small least-squares problem (Arnoldi reduces GMRES to a least-squares problem for the small Hessenberg matrix).
GMRES minimizes the Euclidean residual over (GMRES minimizes the residual norm over the affine Krylov space ).
Proof
By [L1], the Hermitian Arnoldi factorization uses the same orthonormal Krylov basis as Arnoldi but with tridiagonal. Therefore the least-squares problem in [L2] is exactly the Lanczos least-squares problem recorded in [F1].
Step 1.1 shows that the vector coming from [F1] is also the GMRES iterate at step . Applying [L3] gives Neither step 1.1 nor [L3] uses positive definiteness, only Hermitian structure, so the same conclusion holds for Hermitian indefinite .
Stationary iteration from a matrix splitting
Definition
Let admit a matrix splitting
where is invertible in the sense of Invertible matrices and the general linear group . The associated stationary iteration for the system is
Its iteration matrix is
A stationary splitting converges for every start if and only if its iteration matrix has spectral radius below
Statement
Let be a matrix splitting in with stationary iteration
and let be its iteration matrix. Then the following are equivalent:
- For every right-hand side and every initial vector , the iterates converge to the unique solution of .
- The spectral radius is strictly less than .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A complex matrix splitting with invertible , its stationary iteration, and its iteration matrix .
The stationary iteration is with (Stationary iteration from a matrix splitting ).
The field is algebraically closed (The complex numbers are algebraically closed).
Over an algebraically closed field, every endomorphism has Jordan form (Every finite-dimensional endomorphism over an algebraically closed field has Jordan form).
The spectrum is the root set of the characteristic polynomial (For every finite-dimensional space, is exactly the set of roots in of ).
Proof
A vector is a fixed point of the stationary iteration if and only if it solves : indeed, by [F1], Therefore, whenever solves , the error satisfies
Assume . By [L1], [L2], and [L3], we may write with Jordan and every eigenvalue of satisfying . On a Jordan block with nilpotent , one has Because , each scalar factor tends to , so every Jordan block tends to . Hence and therefore . Since , the matrix is invertible by [L3]. Define Then , so , and step 1.1 shows that solves . For any initial vector , step 1.1 gives , so the iterates converge to . If is another solution of , then step 1.1 also gives , hence Iterating and using yields , so . Thus the iterates converge to the unique solution of for every and every .
Conversely, assume the iteration converges for every and every . Taking , statement 1 gives convergence to the unique solution of . By step 1.1 that unique solution is also the unique fixed point of , so it is . Hence for every start one has , which means . If with , then so and therefore . By [L3], every spectral value of is such an eigenvalue over , and thus .
Left preconditioning, right preconditioning, and symmetric preconditioning of a linear system
Definition
Let be a linear system.
If is invertible, the left-preconditioned system is
If is invertible and , the right-preconditioned system is
If is Hermitian positive definite, then by A matrix admits a Cholesky factorisation with positive diagonal exactly when it is Hermitian positive definite, and that factor is unique it has a Cholesky factor with invertible. The corresponding symmetric preconditioning is
Invertible preconditioners give equivalent linear systems, with the transformed residuals and errors written explicitly
Statement
Let be a linear system. In the error formulas in parts 2 and 3, assume is a solution of and put . The corresponding transformed exact solutions are denoted by .
- If and then the left-preconditioned system has exactly the same solution set as . Its residual is , where .
- If and , then is equivalent to . Its residual is the same physical residual , and its error is , where .
- If is Hermitian positive definite and , then is equivalent to . Its residual is and its error is where .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A linear system , the left, right, and symmetric preconditioned forms from the definition, and, when an error formula is used, a solution of .
Left, right, and symmetric preconditioning are exactly the transformed systems with the accompanying variable changes (Left preconditioning, right preconditioning, and symmetric preconditioning of a linear system).
An invertible matrix has a two-sided inverse (Invertible matrices and the general linear group ).
Proof
For left preconditioning, [L1] implies For any trial vector , the transformed residual is
For right preconditioning, put , so by [L1]. Then The right-preconditioned residual is and if then
For symmetric preconditioning, [F1] writes , equivalently . Therefore If , then and Thus each transformed system is equivalent to the original one, with the displayed residual and error maps.
Symmetric positive-definite preconditioning preserves a Hermitian positive-definite CG problem, and the CG bound uses the transformed condition number
Statement
Let be Hermitian positive definite, let solve , and let be Hermitian positive definite. Write , and define
Then is Hermitian positive definite, the transformed system
is equivalent to , and
Consequently, if
then exact-arithmetic CG on the transformed system obeys
which is the preconditioned CG bound.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hermitian positive-definite matrix , a Hermitian positive-definite preconditioner , and the symmetric transform .
Symmetric preconditioning uses the variable change coming from a Cholesky factorization (Left preconditioning, right preconditioning, and symmetric preconditioning of a linear system).
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).
A Hermitian positive-definite matrix has a Cholesky factorization with invertible (A matrix admits a Cholesky factorisation with positive diagonal exactly when it is Hermitian positive definite, and that factor is unique).
CG obeys the Chebyshev -norm bound with the spectral condition number of its Hermitian positive-definite coefficient matrix (CG obeys the Chebyshev -norm bound in terms of the spectral condition number ).
Proof
By [L2], the preconditioner has a factorization with invertible . For any nonzero , because and is Hermitian positive definite. Also So is Hermitian positive definite.
By [F1] and [L1], the transformed system is equivalent to , and its transformed error is . Therefore Hence the energy norms agree under the symmetric change of variables.
Since step 1.1 shows that is Hermitian positive definite, [L3] applies to the transformed system and gives where 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 , not on by itself.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
- Magnus R. Hestenes and Eduard Stiefel, Methods of Conjugate Gradients for Solving Linear Systems
- Jonathan Richard Shewchuk, An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain
- Richard Barrett et al., Templates for the Solution of Linear Systems: Building Blocks for Iterative Methods
- Gilbert Strang, 18.086 Mathematical Methods for Engineers II, Section 6.2 Iterative Methods