Prove a formula related to the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of operators












2












$begingroup$


Let $E$ be complex Hilbert space and $mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.



Definition: Let $T in mathcal{L}(E)$. The Moore-Penrose inverse of $T$, denoted by $T^{+}$, is defined as the unique linear extension of $(bar{T})^{-1}$ in
$$D(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)+mathcal{R}(T)^{perp},$$
with $mathcal{N}(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)^{perp}$ and $bar{T}$ is the isomorphism
$$bar{T}:=T|_{{mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp}}: {mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp} longrightarrow mathcal{R}(T).$$
Moreover, $T^{+}$ is the unique solution of the four ''Moore-Penrose equations'':
$$TXT = T,quad XTX = X,quad XT = P_{N{(T)^{bot}}},,mbox{and},,quad TX = P_{overline{mathcal{R}(T)}}{{|}_{D(T^{+})}}.$$



Here $mathcal{R}(T)$ and $mathcal{N}(T)$ denote respectively the range and the nullspace of $T$. Also $P_{F}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $F$.




It is well known that $T^{+}$ is bounded if and only if $T$ has a closed range.



According to this answer, we have




  • If $A$ is selfadjoint matrix, then
    $$ A^{+}= lim_{t to 0}(A^2+tI)^{-1} A.;;(1).$$
    Note that this limit is with respect to the strong topology.


  • If $A$ is not selfadjoint, then $A^+=A^*(AA^*)^+$ (which is equal to $(A^*A)^+A^*$).



How we prove the formula $(1)$?



In a general situation .i.e. when $T$ is an operator and not a matrix, it is possible to make sense of (1) as a strong limit on the domain of $T^+$?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Let $E$ be complex Hilbert space and $mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.



    Definition: Let $T in mathcal{L}(E)$. The Moore-Penrose inverse of $T$, denoted by $T^{+}$, is defined as the unique linear extension of $(bar{T})^{-1}$ in
    $$D(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)+mathcal{R}(T)^{perp},$$
    with $mathcal{N}(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)^{perp}$ and $bar{T}$ is the isomorphism
    $$bar{T}:=T|_{{mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp}}: {mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp} longrightarrow mathcal{R}(T).$$
    Moreover, $T^{+}$ is the unique solution of the four ''Moore-Penrose equations'':
    $$TXT = T,quad XTX = X,quad XT = P_{N{(T)^{bot}}},,mbox{and},,quad TX = P_{overline{mathcal{R}(T)}}{{|}_{D(T^{+})}}.$$



    Here $mathcal{R}(T)$ and $mathcal{N}(T)$ denote respectively the range and the nullspace of $T$. Also $P_{F}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $F$.




    It is well known that $T^{+}$ is bounded if and only if $T$ has a closed range.



    According to this answer, we have




    • If $A$ is selfadjoint matrix, then
      $$ A^{+}= lim_{t to 0}(A^2+tI)^{-1} A.;;(1).$$
      Note that this limit is with respect to the strong topology.


    • If $A$ is not selfadjoint, then $A^+=A^*(AA^*)^+$ (which is equal to $(A^*A)^+A^*$).



    How we prove the formula $(1)$?



    In a general situation .i.e. when $T$ is an operator and not a matrix, it is possible to make sense of (1) as a strong limit on the domain of $T^+$?











    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$


      Let $E$ be complex Hilbert space and $mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.



      Definition: Let $T in mathcal{L}(E)$. The Moore-Penrose inverse of $T$, denoted by $T^{+}$, is defined as the unique linear extension of $(bar{T})^{-1}$ in
      $$D(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)+mathcal{R}(T)^{perp},$$
      with $mathcal{N}(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)^{perp}$ and $bar{T}$ is the isomorphism
      $$bar{T}:=T|_{{mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp}}: {mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp} longrightarrow mathcal{R}(T).$$
      Moreover, $T^{+}$ is the unique solution of the four ''Moore-Penrose equations'':
      $$TXT = T,quad XTX = X,quad XT = P_{N{(T)^{bot}}},,mbox{and},,quad TX = P_{overline{mathcal{R}(T)}}{{|}_{D(T^{+})}}.$$



      Here $mathcal{R}(T)$ and $mathcal{N}(T)$ denote respectively the range and the nullspace of $T$. Also $P_{F}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $F$.




      It is well known that $T^{+}$ is bounded if and only if $T$ has a closed range.



      According to this answer, we have




      • If $A$ is selfadjoint matrix, then
        $$ A^{+}= lim_{t to 0}(A^2+tI)^{-1} A.;;(1).$$
        Note that this limit is with respect to the strong topology.


      • If $A$ is not selfadjoint, then $A^+=A^*(AA^*)^+$ (which is equal to $(A^*A)^+A^*$).



      How we prove the formula $(1)$?



      In a general situation .i.e. when $T$ is an operator and not a matrix, it is possible to make sense of (1) as a strong limit on the domain of $T^+$?











      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $E$ be complex Hilbert space and $mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.



      Definition: Let $T in mathcal{L}(E)$. The Moore-Penrose inverse of $T$, denoted by $T^{+}$, is defined as the unique linear extension of $(bar{T})^{-1}$ in
      $$D(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)+mathcal{R}(T)^{perp},$$
      with $mathcal{N}(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)^{perp}$ and $bar{T}$ is the isomorphism
      $$bar{T}:=T|_{{mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp}}: {mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp} longrightarrow mathcal{R}(T).$$
      Moreover, $T^{+}$ is the unique solution of the four ''Moore-Penrose equations'':
      $$TXT = T,quad XTX = X,quad XT = P_{N{(T)^{bot}}},,mbox{and},,quad TX = P_{overline{mathcal{R}(T)}}{{|}_{D(T^{+})}}.$$



      Here $mathcal{R}(T)$ and $mathcal{N}(T)$ denote respectively the range and the nullspace of $T$. Also $P_{F}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $F$.




      It is well known that $T^{+}$ is bounded if and only if $T$ has a closed range.



      According to this answer, we have




      • If $A$ is selfadjoint matrix, then
        $$ A^{+}= lim_{t to 0}(A^2+tI)^{-1} A.;;(1).$$
        Note that this limit is with respect to the strong topology.


      • If $A$ is not selfadjoint, then $A^+=A^*(AA^*)^+$ (which is equal to $(A^*A)^+A^*$).



      How we prove the formula $(1)$?



      In a general situation .i.e. when $T$ is an operator and not a matrix, it is possible to make sense of (1) as a strong limit on the domain of $T^+$?








      linear-algebra functional-analysis operator-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 22 '18 at 10:50







      Student

















      asked Dec 20 '18 at 9:04









      StudentStudent

      2,4582524




      2,4582524






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.



          Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.



          Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.



          On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.



          To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$



          EDIT and CORRECTION.



          i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.



          Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.



          Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.



          Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.



          ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.



          In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.



          That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.



          iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
            $endgroup$
            – Student
            Dec 24 '18 at 8:32










          • $begingroup$
            No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
            $endgroup$
            – loup blanc
            Dec 24 '18 at 10:37











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047324%2fprove-a-formula-related-to-the-moore-penrose-pseudo-inverse-of-operators%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.



          Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.



          Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.



          On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.



          To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$



          EDIT and CORRECTION.



          i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.



          Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.



          Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.



          Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.



          ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.



          In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.



          That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.



          iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
            $endgroup$
            – Student
            Dec 24 '18 at 8:32










          • $begingroup$
            No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
            $endgroup$
            – loup blanc
            Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
















          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.



          Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.



          Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.



          On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.



          To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$



          EDIT and CORRECTION.



          i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.



          Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.



          Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.



          Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.



          ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.



          In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.



          That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.



          iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
            $endgroup$
            – Student
            Dec 24 '18 at 8:32










          • $begingroup$
            No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
            $endgroup$
            – loup blanc
            Dec 24 '18 at 10:37














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.



          Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.



          Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.



          On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.



          To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$



          EDIT and CORRECTION.



          i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.



          Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.



          Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.



          Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.



          ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.



          In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.



          That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.



          iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.



          Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.



          Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.



          On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.



          To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$



          EDIT and CORRECTION.



          i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.



          Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.



          Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.



          Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.



          ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.



          In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.



          That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.



          iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 24 '18 at 13:32

























          answered Dec 23 '18 at 19:36









          loup blancloup blanc

          23.4k21851




          23.4k21851












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
            $endgroup$
            – Student
            Dec 24 '18 at 8:32










          • $begingroup$
            No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
            $endgroup$
            – loup blanc
            Dec 24 '18 at 10:37


















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
            $endgroup$
            – Student
            Dec 24 '18 at 8:32










          • $begingroup$
            No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
            $endgroup$
            – loup blanc
            Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
















          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
          $endgroup$
          – Student
          Dec 24 '18 at 8:32




          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
          $endgroup$
          – Student
          Dec 24 '18 at 8:32












          $begingroup$
          No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
          $endgroup$
          – loup blanc
          Dec 24 '18 at 10:37




          $begingroup$
          No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
          $endgroup$
          – loup blanc
          Dec 24 '18 at 10:37


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047324%2fprove-a-formula-related-to-the-moore-penrose-pseudo-inverse-of-operators%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Tonle Sap (See)

          I get strange results when I access the Sqlitedatabase with Unity C# via XAMPP

          Guatemaltekische Davis-Cup-Mannschaft