Matrix Inequalities and Their

Extensions to Lie Groups Chapman Hall

CRC Monographs and Research Notes
in Mathematics 1st Edition Tin-Yau Tam
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/matrix-inequalities-and-their-extensions-to-lie-groups-
chapman-hall-crc-monographs-and-research-notes-in-mathematics-1st-edition-tin-yau
-tam/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

First Edition Liu

https://textbookfull.com/product/matrix-inequalities-and-their-
extensions-to-lie-groups-first-edition-liu/

Extending Structures: Fundamentals and Applications

(Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs and Research Notes in
Mathematics) 1st Edition Ana Agore

https://textbookfull.com/product/extending-structures-
fundamentals-and-applications-chapman-hall-crc-monographs-and-
research-notes-in-mathematics-1st-edition-ana-agore/

Topological Methods for Differential Equations and

Inclusions (Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs and Research
Notes in Mathematics) 1st Edition John R. Graef

https://textbookfull.com/product/topological-methods-for-
differential-equations-and-inclusions-chapman-hall-crc-
monographs-and-research-notes-in-mathematics-1st-edition-john-r-
graef/

Metamodeling for Variable Annuities Chapman and Hall

CRC Financial Mathematics Series 1st Edition Guojun
Gan

https://textbookfull.com/product/metamodeling-for-variable-
annuities-chapman-and-hall-crc-financial-mathematics-series-1st-
edition-guojun-gan/
Handbook of Financial Risk Management Chapman and Hall
CRC Financial Mathematics Series 1st Edition Thierry
Roncalli

https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-financial-risk-
management-chapman-and-hall-crc-financial-mathematics-series-1st-
edition-thierry-roncalli/

Introductory Mathematical Analysis for Quantitative

Finance (Chapman and Hall/CRC Financial Mathematics
Series) 1st Edition Daniele Ritelli

https://textbookfull.com/product/introductory-mathematical-
analysis-for-quantitative-finance-chapman-and-hall-crc-financial-
mathematics-series-1st-edition-daniele-ritelli/

Machine Learning for Factor Investing R Version Chapman

and Hall CRC Financial Mathematics Series 1st Edition
Guillaume Coqueret

https://textbookfull.com/product/machine-learning-for-factor-
investing-r-version-chapman-and-hall-crc-financial-mathematics-
series-1st-edition-guillaume-coqueret/

Math 845 Notes on Lie Groups Mark Reeder

https://textbookfull.com/product/math-845-notes-on-lie-groups-
mark-reeder/

Introduction to Probability (Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts

in Statistical Science) Second Edition Joseph K.
Blitzstein

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-probability-
chapman-hall-crc-texts-in-statistical-science-second-edition-
joseph-k-blitzstein/
 Matrix Inequalities
and Their Extensions
to Lie Groups
 Matrix Inequalities
and Their Extensions
to Lie Groups

Tin-Yau Tam
Xuhua Liu
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2018 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

Version Date: 20180227

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-9616-3 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and
publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication
and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any
future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access
www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
(CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization
that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted
a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
 To Yuet-Ngan Liu (廖月顏), Tin-Yau Tam’s
mother, Xuedun Liu (劉學敦), Xuhua Liu’s father,
and our wives Kitty Tam and Joy Liu
Contents

Preface ix

1 Review of Matrix Theory 1

1.1 Matrix Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1.1 Polar Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2 Singular Value Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.3 QR Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.4 Cholesky Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.5 Additive Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.6 Jordan Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.7 LU Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1.8 LωU Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Majorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3 Matrix Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4 The Matrix Exponential Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.5 Compound Matrices and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.5.1 Compound Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.5.2 Additive Compound Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.5.3 Applications to Matrix Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2 Structure Theory of Semisimple Lie Groups 41

2.1 Smooth Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.2 Lie Groups and Their Lie Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3 Complex Semisimple Lie Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.4 Real Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.5 Cartan Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.6 Root Space Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.7 Iwasawa Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.8 Weyl Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.9 KA+ K Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.10 Complete Multiplicative Jordan Decomposition . . . . . . . . 61
2.11 Kostant’s Preorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

vii
viii Contents

3 Inequalities for Matrix Exponentials 67

3.1 Golden-Thompson Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.2 Araki-Lieb-Thirring Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3 Bernstein Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.4 Extensions to Lie Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4 Inequalities for Spectral Norm 91

4.1 Matrix Inequalities for Spectral Norm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.2 Extensions to Lie Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5 Inequalities for Unitarily Invariant Norms 103

5.1 Matrix Inequalities for Unitarily Invariant Norms . . . . . . 103

5.2 Extensions to Lie Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

6 Inequalities for Geometric Means 109

6.1 Matrix Inequalities for Geometric Means . . . . . . . . . . . 109

6.2 Symmetric Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.3 Extensions to Lie Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.4 Geodesic Triangles in Symmetric Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

7 Kostant Convexity Theorems 121

7.1 Kostant Linear Convexity Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

7.2 A Partial Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.3 Thompson-Sing and Related Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.4 Some Matrix Results Associated with SO(n) and Sp(n) . . . 130
7.5 Kostant Nonlinear Convexity Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.6 Thompson Theorem on Complex Symmetric Matrices . . . . 134

Bibliography 139

Index 147
Preface

The study of matrix inequalities has a long history and a huge volume of
literature can be found in this research area. Conferences, workshops, and
mini symposia have been held for its advancement. Many books contain good
treatment of matrix inequalities, for example, Bhatia [Bha97, Bha07], Mar-
shall and Olkin and Arnold [MOA11], Horn and Johnson [HJ13, HJ91], Serre
[Ser10], Zhan [Zha02], and Zhang [Zha11]. In addition, Bernstein [Ber09] has
a large collection of matrix inequalities.
This book is the first attempt to study matrix inequalities and their
Lie counterparts in a systematic way. A major inspiration to this work is
the seminal paper of Professor B. Kostant [Kos73], in addition to Profes-
sor Robert C. Thompson’s 1988 Johns Hopkins Lecture Notes, available at
http://www.math.sjsu.edu/~so/thompson.html, and many nice matrix in-
equalities obtained by different authors in the literature. Kostant’s paper was
motivated by the Schur-Horn Theorem [Sch23, Hor54a] on the eigenvalues
and diagonal entries of a Hermitian matrix as well as the Weyl-Horn Theorem
[Wey49, Hor54b] on the eigenvalues and singular values of a complex matrix.
A good understanding of this paper led the first author [Tam97, Tam99] to
discover the connection between the results of Thompson [Tho77] (also see
Sing [Sin76]) on the singular values and diagonal entries of a complex matrix.
In his review, Professor L. Mirsky praised Thompson’s work [Tho77] as “an
advance of almost the same order of magnitude as the earlier work of Horn”
and, in his review on Sing’s paper [Sin76], Thompson commented, “He [Sing]
plainly is a talented mathematician from whom many more worthwhile results
can be expected.”
In his paper [Tho92], Thompson wrote, “Some of the papers in the linear
algebra data base achieve their objectives using powerful, advanced tools.
Many, however, use only elementary techniques, relying on skill and strategy.
These are the high and low roads of the title. Our prediction qualitatively
describing the future is that the high-low interaction will yield increasingly
deep insight and powerful stimuli. The high road may perhaps be described
as ‘finding the right ideas’ for the correct description of one’s problem. It
really is quite accurate to state that the young future linear algebraist who
hopes to find his own right ideas needs to be trained (at least) in graph
theory, Lie theory, functional analysis, multilinear algebra, algebraic geometry,
combinatorics, and numerical linear algebra.” Though these comments were
made 25 years ago, they remain valid and fresh today.

ix
x Preface

It would be exciting to see whether some beautiful matrix results obtained

by the high road approach can be proved by the low road approach, for ex-
ample, the solution to Horn’s conjecture on the spectrum of sum of two Her-
mitian matrices (see Knutson and Tao [KT99, KT01]) and the convergence of
the Aluthge iterations of a complex square matrix (see Antezana and Pujals
and Stojanoff [APS11]). Conversely, it would be nice if an insightful expla-
nation, possibly from Lie theory, can be found on Professor Thompson’s low
road approach in his famous paper [Tho79].
Though Chapter 1 is a review of some materials in matrix theory, it has
some special features. Although the additive Jordan decomposition of a ma-
trix has many proofs in the literature, our presentation of Roitman’s simple
proof [Roi99] is probably the first in a book setting. Moreover, we present
Tam’s simple induction proof [Tam10a] of A. Horn’s result, which is the con-
verse of Weyl’s inequalities on the singular values and eigenvalues of a matrix.
The Gelfand-Naimark decompostion of a matrix A = LωU is given and its
difference between and the connection to the Gaussian elimination ωLU are
pointed out.
It is our sincere hope that this book is just a beginning of the endeavor of
extending matrix inequalities to Lie groups and an inspiration to others.
We are thankful to Callum Fraser, Sarfraz Khan, and Suzanne Lassandro
of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group for their assistance, support, and pa-
tience. Special thanks are given to Luyining (Elaine) Gan for the nice TpX dia-
grams in this book; Sima Ahsani, Luyining (Elaine) Gan, Wei Gao, Daryl Gra-
nario, Mehmet Gumus, Zhuoheng He, Jianzhen (Jason) Liu, Xavier Martinez-
Rivera, Samir Raouafi, and Daochang Zhang for proofreading the manuscript
(Ph.D. students and visitors of the first author at Auburn University); Beth
Fletcher for proofreading the preface and her excellent suggestions. More than
likely, any mistakes found in the book are those that we injected after their
proofreading.
Finally, we thank our families for their constant support, encouragement,
and understanding.

Tin-Yau Tam, Auburn

Xuhua “Roy” Liu, Greenville

February, 2018
Chapter 1
Review of Matrix Theory

1.1 Matrix Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1.1 Polar Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2 Singular Value Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.3 QR Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.4 Cholesky Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.5 Additive Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.6 Jordan Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.7 LU Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1.8 LωU Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Majorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3 Matrix Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4 The Matrix Exponential Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.5 Compound Matrices and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.5.1 Compound Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.5.2 Additive Compound Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.5.3 Applications to Matrix Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

In this chapter, we review some basic elements of matrix theory that are
related to later chapters. The following notations will be used thoroughly.
Let N denote the set of all positive integers.
Let Z denote the set of all integers.
Let R denote the field of all real numbers.
Let R+ denote the set of all nonnegative real numbers.
Let C denote the field of all complex numbers.
Let Rn denote the linear space of all n-tuples over R.
Let Rn+ = {(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Rn : xi > 0 for all 1 6 i 6 n}.
Let Cn denote the linear space of all n-tuples over C.
Let Cn×n denote the linear algebra of all n × n matrices over C.
Let Rn×n denote the linear algebra of all n × n matrices over R.
Let I (or In ) denote the identity matrix in Cn×n .

1
2 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

For all A ∈ Cn×n , let Ā, A⊤ , and A∗ denote the conjugate, transpose, and
conjugate transpose of A, respectively.
For all A = (aij ) ∈ Cn×n , let

s(A) = (s1 (A), . . . , sn (A)) = (s1 , . . . , sn )

denote the vector of singular values of A in decreasing order, let

λ(A) = (λ1 (A), . . . , λn (A)) = (λ1 , . . . , λn )

denote the vector of eigenvalues of A whose absolute values are in decreasing

order, let
|λ(A)| = (|λ1 |, . . . , |λn |),
let
(s(A))m = (sm m
1 , . . . , sn ), ∀ m ∈ N,
let
(λ(A))m = (λm m
1 , . . . , λn ), ∀ m ∈ N,
let
|A| = (A∗ A)1/2
so that λ(|A|) = s(A), let
n
Y
det A = λi
i=1

denote the determinant of A, and let

n
X n
X
tr A = aii = λi
i=1 i=1

denote the trace of A.

For scalars a1 , a2 , . . . , an , let
 
a1
 a2 
 
diag (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) =  .. 
 . 
an

denote the n × n diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are a1 , a2 , . . . , an ,

with the prescribed order.
Let Nn = {A ∈ Cn×n : A∗ A = AA∗ } denote the set of all n × n normal
matrices.
Let Hn = {A ∈ Cn×n : A∗ = A} denote the real linear space of all n × n
Hermitian matrices.
 Review of Matrix Theory 3

Let Pn = {A ∈ Cn×n : x∗ Ax > 0 for all nonzero x ∈ Cn } denote the set

of all n × n positive definite matrices.
Let Sn denote the group of all n × n permutation matrices.
Let Sn denote the symmetric group on a finite set of n symbols.
Let GLn (C) = {A ∈ Cn×n : det A 6= 0} denote the general linear group of
all n × n invertible matrices over C.
Let GLn (R) = {A ∈ Rn×n : det A 6= 0} denote the general linear group of
all n × n invertible matrices over R.
Let SLn (C) = {A ∈ Cn×n : det A = 1} denote the special linear group of
all n × n complex matrices whose determinants are 1.
Let SLn (R) = {A ∈ Rn×n : det A = 1} denote the special linear group of
all n × n real matrices whose determinants are 1.
Let Un = {U ∈ Cn×n : U ∗ U = U U ∗ = I} or U(n) denote the unitary
group of all n × n unitary matrices.
Let On = {O ∈ Rn×n : O⊤ O = OO⊤ = I} or O(n) denote the orthogonal
group of all n × n real orthogonal matrices.
Let SUn = {U ∈ Un : det U = 1} or SU(n) denote the special unitary
group of all n × n unitary matrices whose determinants are 1.
Let SOn = {O ∈ On : det O = 1} or SO(n) denote the special orthogonal
group of all n × n real orthogonal matrices whose determinants are 1.

1.1 Matrix Decompositions

In this section, we review some matrix decompositions that will be used
later. They are the left and right polar decompositions, singular value de-
composition, QR decomposition, additive and multiplicative Jordan decom-
positions, and LωU decomposition and others. Most of them are familiar to
readers with a background of standard matrix analysis (e.g., [HJ13]). Almost
all matrix decompositions presented here can be extended to Lie groups or
Lie algebras.

1.1.1 Polar Decompositions

For any A ∈ Cn×n , there exists U ∈ Un such that

A = P U, (1.1)
4 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

where P = (AA∗ )1/2 . Since P is on the left, the decomposition (1.1) is called
a left polar decomposition of A. Similarly, a right polar decomposition for A is

A = U P, (1.2)

where P = (A∗ A)1/2 and U ∈ Un . If A is real, then both P and U in (1.1) and
(1.2) may be taken to be real. If A ∈ GLn (C), then P ∈ Pn and U is unique
in both (1.1) and (1.2).
The polar decompositions (1.1) and (1.2) correspond to the Cartan decom-
positions G = P K and G = KP , respectively, for all connected noncompact
real semisimple Lie groups G (see Theorem 2.6 and Example 2.7 for details).

1.1.2 Singular Value Decomposition

For any A ∈ Cn×n , there exist U, V ∈ Un such that

A = U diag (s1 , . . . , sn )V ∗ , (1.3)

where s1 > s2 > · · · > sn > 0 are the eigenvalues of |A| = (A∗ A)1/2 , called
the singular values of A. The columns of U are eigenvectors of AA∗ (called
left singular vectors of A), and the columns of V are eigenvectors of A∗ A
(called right singular vectors of A). However, U and V are never uniquely
determined. If A ∈ GLn (C), then sn > 0. The decomposition (1.3) is called a
singular value decomposition of A, which is equivalent to polar decompositions
(1.1) and (1.2).
The singular value decomposition (1.3) corresponds to the Lie group de-
composition G = KA+ K for all connected noncompact real semisimple Lie
groups G. In such case, the vector of singular values s(A) of A ∈ Cn×n , in
decreasing order, corresponds to the unique A+ -component a+ (g) of g ∈ G
(see Theorem 2.14 and Example 2.15 for details).

1.1.3 QR Decomposition
For any A ∈ Cn×n , there exist Q ∈ Un and upper triangular R ∈ Cn×n
such that
A = QR. (1.4)
If A is real, then both Q and R may be taken to be real. If A ∈ GLn (C), then
the diagonal entries of R may be chosen to be positive; in this case, both Q
and R are unique. The decomposition (1.4) is called a QR decomposition of
A.
The QR decomposition (1.4) is the matrix version of the Gram-Schmidt
orthonormalization process on the columns of A from the first column to the
last one. When A ∈ GLn (C) and the diagonal entries rii , i = 1, . . . , n, of R
 Review of Matrix Theory 5

are positive, rii is the distance (in Euclidean norm) from the i-th column of
A to the subspace spanned by the first i − 1 columns of A.
Applications of the Gram-Schmidt process on A ∈ Cn×n from the first row
to the last row, from the last column to the first column, and from the last
row to the first row, respectively, yield the formal decompositions
A = LV, A = QL, A = RV,
where L and R are lower and upper triangular, respectively, and the unitary
V and Q represent that the processes are with respect to rows and columns,
respectively.
The QR decomposition (1.4) corresponds to the Iwasawa decomposition
G = KAN for all connected noncompact real semisimple Lie groups G. In
such case, the diagonal entries of R correspond to the A-component a(g) of
g ∈ G (see Theorem 2.11 and Example 2.12 for details).

1.1.4 Cholesky Decomposition

Any A ∈ Pn can be written as
A = R∗ R, (1.5)
where R ∈ GLn (C) is upper triangular with positive diagonal entries. The
decomposition (1.5) is called the Cholesky decomposition. It can be obtained
from the QR decomposition (1.4) as follows: if A1/2 = QR, then
A = A1/2 A1/2 = (A1/2 )∗ A1/2 = (QR)∗ (QR) = R∗ R.
If S = {R ∈ GLn (C) : R is upper triangular with positive diagonal entries},
then S is a closed solvable subgroup of GLn (C). The set Pn is a closed subman-
ifold of GLn (C). The function φ : S → Pn given by φ(R) = R∗ R is actually
a diffeomorphism onto Pn . See [Hel78, Proposition VI.5.3] for an extension of
this fact to connected noncompact real semisimple Lie groups.

1.1.5 Additive Decompositions

Any A ∈ Cn×n can be uniquely written as
A = H + S, (1.6)
where H = (A + A∗ )/2 is Hermitian and S = (A − A∗ )/2 is skew-Hermitian.
This is called the Cartesian decomposition of A, and it corresponds to the
Cartan decomposition g = k ⊕ p for all real semisimple Lie algebras g (see
Theorem 2.3 and Example 2.4 and Example 2.5 for details).
Any A ∈ Cn×n can be uniquely written as
A = S + D + N, (1.7)
6 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

where S is skew-Hermitian whose strictly lower triangular entries are the same
with A, D is real diagonal (consisting of the real parts of the diagonal entries
of A), and N is strictly upper triangular. This corresponds to the Iwasawa
decomposition g = k ⊕ a ⊕ n for all real semisimple Lie algebras g (see (2.9)
and Example 2.10 for details).

1.1.6 Jordan Decompositions

In this subsection, we shall prove an important but less known decompo-
sition, called the complete multiplicative Jordan decomposition.
Let A ∈ Cn×n . Then A is called nilpotent if Ak = 0 for some k ∈ N; A is
called semisimple if it is diagonalizable (that is, if there exists S ∈ GLn (C)
such that S −1 AS is diagonal); A is called real semisimple if it is semisimple
and all of its eigenvalues are real.
Let A ∈ GLn (C). Then A is called elliptic if it is semisimple and the
absolute values of all of its eigenvalues are 1; A is called hyperbolic if it is
real semisimple and all of its eigenvalues are positive; A is called unipotent
if A − I is nilpotent. Obviously, each of the three classes of elliptic, hyper-
bolic, and unipotent matrices is closed under conjugacy (i.e., matrix similarity
transformation).
Any A ∈ Cn×n can be uniquely written as
A = S + N, (1.8)
where S is semisimple and N is nilpotent and SN = N S. This is called the
additive Jordan decomposition.
The additive Jordan decomposition (1.8) follows easily from the fact that
every A ∈ Cn×n is similar to its Jordan normal form JA (unique up to per-
mutation of the Jordan blocks): If P −1 AP = JA for some P ∈ GLn (C), then
write JA = JD + JN , where JD is diagonal and JN is strictly upper triangular.
Note that JD JN = JN JD , since both JD and JN are block diagonal matrices
with respective blocks of the same size and the blocks of JD are scalar matri-
ces. Let S = P −1 JD P and N = P −1 JN P . Then A = S + N with SN = N S.
The uniqueness of the additive Jordan decomposition (1.8) follows from the
fact that both S and N can be written as polynomials in A without constant
terms.
Since other Jordan decompositions in this subsection depend on (1.8), we
give a short proof of the Jordan normal form theorem (Theorem 1.1 below is
a restatement of the Jordan normal form in the language of linear transfor-
mations.)
Let T : V → V be a linear operator on a finite dimensional vector space V
over C. Let λ ∈ C be an eigenvalue of T . Then there exists a nonzero x ∈ V
such that
(T − λI)k (x) = 0
 Review of Matrix Theory 7

for some k ∈ N. Let m ∈ N be the smallest such integer. The linearly inde-
pendent set
{(T − λI)m−1 (x), . . . , (T − λI)(x), x}
is called a Jordan sequence of T corresponding to λ. The matrix representation
of the restriction of T on

W = span{(T − λI)m−1 (x), . . . , (T − λI)(x), x}

relative to the ordered basis {(T −λI)m−1 (x), . . . , (T −λI)(x), x} is the Jordan
block  
λ 1
 .. .. 
 . . 
Jm (λ) = 


 ..
. 1
λ m×m


with J1 (λ) = λ . An ordered basis of V consisting of Jordan sequences of T
is called a T -Jordan basis. Obviously, the matrix representation of T relative
to a T -Jordan basis is a Jordan matrix, i.e., a block diagonal matrix

J1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Js ,

where the diagonal blocks Ji ’s, 1 6 i 6 s, are Jordan blocks.

To determining the existence of a Jordan normal form for every A ∈ Cn×n
is then reduced to the determining the existence of a T -Jordan basis for every
linear operator T .
Theorem 1.1. If T : V → V is a linear operator on a finite dimensional
vector space V over C, then V has a T -Jordan basis.
Proof. Suppose to the contrary that the statement is false. Let T : V → V
be a counter-example with dim V minimal. In particular, V 6= 0 and T 6= 0.
Since C is algebraically closed, the characteristic polynomial of T splits into
linear factors. Let µ be an eigenvalue of T . By replacing T by T − µI we
may assume that µ = 0. So T is not injective and hence dim T (V ) < dim V .
By the minimality of dim V , we see that T (V ) has a T -Jordan basis, viewing
T restricted on T (V ). Let W ⊃ T (V ) be a subspace of maximal dimension
among all subspaces of V with a T -Jordan basis. We will show that W = V ,
a contradiction.
We first prove that T (V ) = T (W ). Let β be a T -Jordan basis of W .
Because T (V ) ⊂ W ⊂ V , it suffices to show that β ∩ T (V ) ⊂ T (W ). Let
w ∈ β ∩ T (V ). Then w belongs to a Jordan sequence corresponding to some
eigenvalue λ of T :

{(T − λI)m−1 (x), . . . , (T − λI)(x), x}.

There are two cases.

8 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

Case 1: λ = 0. If w 6= x, then w = T i (x) = T (T i−1 (x)) ∈ T (W ) for some

1 6 i 6 m − 1. If w = x, pick any w′ ∈ V such that T (w′ ) = w. If w′ ∈ / W,
then we may obtain the following Jordan sequence

{T m−1 (x), . . . , T (x), x, w′ },

thus extending β to a T -Jordan basis of a subspace properly containing W , a

contradiction. Hence w′ ∈ W , and w ∈ T (W ).
Case 2: λ =
6 0. Then for all v ∈ W we have

v ∈ T (W ) ⇐⇒ (T − λI)(v) = T (v) − λv ∈ T (W ).

Since (T − λI)m (w) = 0 ∈ T (W ), we see that w ∈ T (W ).

To show W = V , let v ∈ V be arbitrary. Since T (V ) = T (W ), we have
T (v) = T (w) for some w ∈ W . So v − w ∈ ker T . But ker T ⊂ W , otherwise
we may add to β a nonzero element in ker T to obtain a T -Jordan basis of a
subspace properly containing W . Thus v ∈ W , and so W = V .
Let A ∈ GLn (C). By the additive Jordan decomposition (1.8), we have
A = S + N with S ∈ GLn (C). Putting s = S and u = I + S −1 N , we have the
multiplicative Jordan decomposition

A = su (1.9)

where s is semisimple, u is unipotent, and su = us. Note that both s and u

are unique, by virtue of the uniqueness of S and N in (1.8).
Lemma 1.2. Any semisimple s ∈ GLn (C) can be uniquely written as

s = eh, (1.10)

where e and h are elliptic and hyperbolic, respectively, and eh = he.

Proof. Because s ∈ GLn (C) is semisimple, there exist T ∈ GLn (C) and diag-
onal D ∈ GLn (C) such that s = T DT −1 . Let E and H be diagonal such that
D = EH and that the absolute values of all diagonal entries of E are 1 and
that all diagonal entries of H are positive (being the absolute values of the
eigenvalues of s). Let e = T ET −1 and h = T HT −1 so that e is elliptic and h
is hyperbolic. Then s = eh and s, e, h mutually commute. The uniqueness of
e and h follows from the uniqueness of the polar decomposition D = EH.
The following result is called complete multiplicative Jordan decomposition,
abbreviated as CMJD.
Theorem 1.3. Any A ∈ GLn (C) can be uniquely written as

A = ehu, (1.11)

where e, h, and u are elliptic, hyperbolic, and unipotent, respectively, and all
three commute.
 Review of Matrix Theory 9

Proof. Since A ∈ GLn (C), by (1.9) and (1.10), there exist unique semisimple
s, elliptic e, hyperbolic h, and unipotent u such that

A = su = ehu

with su = us and eh = he. Since ehu = A = ueh = (ueu−1 )(uhu−1 )u with

elliptic ueu−1 and hyperbolic uhu−1 , the uniqueness of s, e, h, and u implies
that
e = ueu−1 and h = uhu−1 .
Therefore, ue = eu and uh = hu.
We emphasize that in the decomposition (1.11), the eigenvalues of h are
the absolute values of the corresponding eigenvalues of A, i.e.,

λ(h) = |λ(A)|.

We also note that if A ∈ GLn (R) and A = ehu is the complete multi-
plicative Jordan decomposition of A viewed as for A ∈ GLn (C), then e, h,
u are all real. To see this, we first recall that the real matrix A is similar
via a real similarity matrix to its real Jordan canonical form [HJ13, p.202]. It
follows that the matrices in the additive Jordan decomposition A = S + N
and the multiplicative Jordan decomposition A = su are real. Furthermore,
for a, b ∈ R, the polar decomposition
  ! √ 
a b √ a √ b a2 + b 2 √ 0
a 2 +b2 a 2 +b2
=
−b a − √a2b+b2 √a2a+b2 0 a2 + b 2

guarantees that matrices e and h in the unique decomposition s = eh are also

real.
The complete multiplicative Jordan decomposition (1.10) has an extension,
bearing the same name, to all connected noncompact real semisimple Lie
groups (see Theorem 2.17).

1.1.7 LU Decomposition
Another famous matrix decomposition is the LU decomposition, which
can be viewed as the matrix form of Gaussian elimination. Though we will
not use the LU decomposition in our study, we state it here for comparison
with a similar matrix decomposition that is extendable to Lie groups.
For A ∈ Cn×n , if there exist a lower triangular L ∈ Cn×n and an upper
triangular U ∈ Cn×n such that

A = LU, (1.12)

then such a decomposition is called an LU decomposition of A. Not every

10 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

square matrix has an LU decomposition. If A ∈ GLn (C), then A has an

LU decomposition if and only if every leading principal submatrix of A is
invertible; in this case, A may be uniquely written as

A = L′ DU ′ , (1.13)

where L′ ∈ GLn (C) is unit lower triangular, U ′ ∈ GLn (C) is unit upper
triangular, and D ∈ GLn (C) is a diagonal matrix whose leading principal
minors are equal to the corresponding ones of A.
If Ax = b is a linear system with A ∈ Cn×n , one can always reorder the
equations so that the new coefficient matrix has an LU decomposition. In
other words, every A ∈ Cn×n can be written as

A = ωLU, (1.14)

where ω is a permutation matrix.

1.1.8 LωU Decomposition

Let F = R or C. The LωU decomposition asserts that each A ∈ GLn (F)
can be written as
A = LωU, (1.15)
where L ∈ GLn (F) is unit lower triangular, U ∈ GLn (F) is upper triangular,
and ω is a permutation matrix. It is different from the ωLU decomposition
(1.14). Though the LωU decomposition is less known, it has very nice prop-
erties. For example, the permutation matrix ω and diag U ∈ Fn in (1.15) are
uniquely determined by A, while none of the components in (1.14) is unique.
Let {e1 , . . . , en } be the standard basis of Fn , that is, ei has 1 as the only
nonzero entry at the i-th entry. Using the same notation, we identify a permu-
tation ω ∈ Sn with the unique permutation matrix ω ∈ Sn , where ωei = eω(i) .
The matrix representation of ω ∈ Sn under the standard basis is


ω = eω(1) , . . . , eω(n) .



Write A = a1 , . . . , an in column form. Then Aω = aω(1) , . . . , aω(n) . More-
over, if x1 , . . . , xn ∈ F, then

ω −1 diag (x1 , . . . , xn )ω = diag (xω(1) , . . . , xω(n) ). (1.16)

Given a matrix A ∈ Fn×n , let A(i|j) denote the submatrix formed by

the first i rows and the first j columns of A, where 1 6 i, j 6 n. The fol-
lowing result is the LωU decomposition, also known as the Gelfand-Naimark
decomposition.
Theorem 1.4. Let F = R or C. If A ∈ GLn (F), then there exist a permutation
 Review of Matrix Theory 11

matrix ω ∈ Sn , a unit lower triangular matrix L ∈ GLn (F), and an upper

triangular U ∈ GLn (F) such that
A = LωU.
The permutation matrix ω is uniquely determined by A:
rank ω(i|j) = rank A(i|j), ∀ 1 6 i, j 6 n.
Moreover, diag U is uniquely determined by A.
Proof. We first prove the existence of the decomposition A = LωU , which is
a matrix version of some sequence of elementary row and column operations
applied to A.
Suppose that ak1 , 1 6 k 6 n, is the first nonzero entry of the first column
of A. By multiplying the first column of A by 1/ak1 , we turn the (k, 1) entry
to 1. Using this 1 as a pivot, we consecutively eliminate other nonzero entries
on the first column (using row operations) and the kth row (using column
operations).
The above operations are equivalent to the following post- and pre-matrix
multiplications: Let D1 = diag (1/ak1 , 1, . . . , 1) ∈ GLn (F). Let A′ = AD1 and
denote the (i, j) entry of A′ by a′ij . Let Eij ∈ Rn×n with (i, j) entry 1 as the
only nonzero entry. Let
L1 = (I − a′k+1,1 Ek+1,k )(I − a′k+2,1 Ek+2,k ) · · · (I − a′n1 Enk ) ∈ GLn (F),
a unit lower triangular matrix, and
U1 = (I − a′k2 E12 )(I − a′k3 E13 ) · · · (I − a′kn E1n ) ∈ GLn (F),
a unit upper triangular matrix. Then
A → L1 AD1 → L1 AD1 U1
 0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗   0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗   0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗ 
. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
 .. .. . . . .  .. .. . . . .  .. .. . . . .
 0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗  0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗  0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗ 
 ak1 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗ →  1 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗ →  0 0 0 ··· 0  .
 ∗ ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗  0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗  10 ∗0 ···
···
∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗ 
 . . .. .. .. ..  . . .. .. .. ..  . . .. .. .. .. 
.. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . .
∗ ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗ 0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗ 0 ∗ ··· ∗ ∗ ∗ ··· ∗

Repeat the procedure on the second column of L1 AD1 U1 , and so on.

Eventually we obtain a permutation matrix ω, unit lower triangular matri-
ces L1 , . . . , Ln ∈ GLn (F), diagonal matrices D1 , . . . , Dn ∈ GLn (F), and unit
upper triangular matrices U1 , . . . , Un ∈ GLn (F) such that
Ln · · · L1 AD1 U1 · · · Dn Un = ω.
Putting
L−1 = Ln · · · L1 ,
U −1 = D1 U1 · · · Dn Un ,
12 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

we obtain the desired decomposition A = LωU .

Since the group of nonsingular diagonal matrices normalizes the group of
unit upper triangular matrices, we have

U −1 = U ′ D,

where

U ′ = (D1 U1 D1−1 )(D1 D2 U2 (D1 D2 )−1 ) · · · (D1 · · · Dn Un (D1 · · · Dn )−1 )

is unit upper triangular and D = D1 · · · Dn . So U = D−1 U ′−1 . In other words,

the ith diagonal entry uii of U is the first nonzero entry of the ith column
of Li−1 · · · L1 AD1 U1 · · · Di−1 Ui−1 , according to the definition of Di in the ith
elimination step.
By block multiplication we notice that
  

ω(i|j) ∗ U (j|j)
A(i|j) = L(i|i) 0
∗ ∗ 0
= L(i|i)ω(i|j)U (j|j)

where A(i|j) denotes the submatrix of A obtained by deleting the ith row and
jth column of A. Thus

rank ω(i|j) = rank A(i|j), ∀ 1 6 i, j 6 n.

Obviously rank ω(i|j) is the number of nonzero entries in ω(i|j). Thus it is

easy to verify that ωij is nonzero if and only if

rank ω(i|j) − rank ω(i|j − 1) − rank ω(i − 1|j) + rank ω(i − 1|j − 1) = 1.

So the permutation matrix ω is uniquely determined by

rank ω(i|j), ∀ 1 6 i, j 6 n.

Hence ω is uniquely determined by A.

If LωU = L′ ωU ′ for another unit lower triangular L′ and upper triangular
U , then ω −1 L′−1 Lω = U ′ U −1 . Clearly the diagonal entries of ω −1 L′−1 Lω are
′

1’s, so diag U = diag U ′ . Thus diag U is uniquely determined by A.

Now the following is well-defined:

u(A) := diag U = diag (u11 , . . . , unn ), (1.17)

where A = LωU is any Gelfand-Naimark decomposition of A.

Although ω and u(A) are unique in all Gelfand-Naimark decompositions
A = LωU of A, the components L and U may be not unique. For example,
         
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
= = .
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
 Review of Matrix Theory 13

The unique ω in a Gelfand-Naimark decomposition A = LωU of A can

also be the permutation matrix in some Gaussian elimination A = ωL′ U ′ of
A. To see this, notice that ω −1 A = (ω −1 Lω)U and

det [(ω −1 Lω)(k|k)] = 1,

since (ω −1 Lω)(k|k) is the submatrix formed by choosing the ω(1), · · · , ω(k)

rows and columns of L. Therefore, by (1.13) we have ω −1 Lω = L1 U1 for some
unit lower triangular L1 and unit upper triangular U1 , and

A = LωU = ω(ω −1 Lω)U = ωL1 (U1 U ) = ωL′ U ′ , (1.18)

where L′ = L1 and U ′ = U1 U .
Furthermore, by (1.18) we have ω −1 A = L1 U1 U . Hence u(A) can be com-
puted by
k
Y
uii = det [U (k|k)] = det [(L1 U1 U )(k|k)] = det [(ω −1 A)(k|k)]. (1.19)
i=1

Let J ∈ GLn (C) denote the permutation matrix whose anti-diagonal en-
tries are 1. Note that J 2 = I, JLJ is upper triangular, and JU J is lower
triangular. We then get two variations of LωU decomposition: If AJ = LωU ,
then
A = L(ωJ)(JU J) = Lω ′ L′ . (1.20)
If JA = LωU , then
A = (JLJ)(Jω)U = U ′ ω ′ U (1.21)
which is cited as a result by Gelfand-Naimark in [Hel78, p.434]. The Gelfand-
Naimark decomposition and its variations (1.20) and (1.21) correspond to vari-
ations of the Bruhat decomposition of connected noncompact real semisimple
Lie groups (see [Lia04, p.117]).

Notes and References. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is adopted from [Roi99].
The proof of Theorem 1.4 is from [HT10].

1.2 Majorizations
A preorder on a set is a binary relation that is reflexive and transitive. If
a preorder is also anti-symmetric, then it is called a partial order. A natural
partial order on Rn is defined by the cone Rn+ :

x6y ⇐⇒ y − x ∈ Rn+ .
14 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

x2

(y2 , y1 )

{x : x ≺ y}

y = (y1 , y2 )

x1

x3

y = (y1 , y2 , y3 )

x1 x2

{x : x ≺ y}

Let x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) and y = (y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) be in Rn . Let x↓ =

(x[1] , x[2] , . . . , x[n] ) denote a rearrangement of the components of x such that
x[1] > x[2] > · · · > x[n] . We say that x is weakly majorized by y, denoted by
x ≺w y, if
Xk Xk
x[i] 6 y[i] , ∀ 1 6 k 6 n.
i=1 i=1
n
X n
X
If x ≺w y and x[i] = y[i] , then we say that x is majorized by y and
i=1 i=1
denote it by
x ≺ y.
The above diagrams are majorization regions when n = 2 and n = 3, respec-
tively.
When x and y are nonnegative, we say that x is weakly log-majorized by
y, denoted by x ≺w-log y, if
k
Y k
Y
x[i] 6 y[i] , ∀ 1 6 k 6 n.
i=1 i=1
 Review of Matrix Theory 15
n
Y n
Y
If x ≺w-log y and x[i] = y[i] , then we say that x is log-majorized by y
i=1 i=1
and denote it by
x ≺log y.
In other words, when x and y are positive,

x ≺log y ⇐⇒ log x ≺ log y.

Each of the above four types of relation is a preorder (but not a partial order)
on Rn or Rn+ .
There are many equivalent conditions for majorization ≺ and one of them
is suitable for generalization to Lie groups and Lie algebras. We define some
terms first.
The convex hull of a finite point set S in Rn is the set of all convex com-
binations of its points. Denote the convex hull of S = {p1 , p2 , . . . , pm } ⊂ Rn
by conv S, i.e.,
(m m
)
X X
conv S = ci pi : 0 6 ci 6 1 for all 1 6 i 6 m and ci = 1 .
i=1 i=1

Geometrically, conv S is the convex polytope in Rn whose vertices are the

points of S.
An entry-wise nonnegative matrix A ∈ Rn×n is said to be doubly stochastic
if all its row sums and column sums are 1. The following famous characteri-
zation of doubly stochastic matrices is due to Birkhoff (see [HJ13, p.549]).
Theorem 1.5. (Birkhoff) A matrix is doubly stochastic if and only if it is a
convex combination of permutation matrices.
The following is a collection of equivalent conditions for majorization. The
equivalence (1) ⇔ (4) can be extended to real semisimple Lie groups and Lie
algebras, where the symmetric group Sn is replaced by the Weyl group (see
Example 2.22).
Theorem 1.6. The following statements are equivalent for x, y ∈ Rn .
(1) x ≺ y.
(2) x = Ay for some doubly stochastic matrix A ∈ Rn×n .
(3) x ∈ conv Sn · y, where Sn · y denotes the orbit of y under the action of
the symmetric group Sn .
(4) conv Sn · x ⊂ conv Sn · y.
16 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

Proof. We shall show that (1) ⇔ (2) ⇔ (3) ⇔ (4).

(1) ⇔ (2). Note that the majorization relationship is invariant under rear-
rangement of the entries of x and y. The product of doubly stochastic matrices
is also doubly stochastic. Thus we may assume without loss of generality that
x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) and y = (y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) with x1 > x2 > · · · > xn and
y1 > y2 > · · · > yn .
For (1) ⇒ (2), we proceed by induction on n. The case n = 1 is trivial, so
we consider n > 2. Since x ≺ y, it follows that

y1 > x1 > yk

for some minimal 1 6 k 6 n. There are two cases under consideration: k = 1

and k > 2.
Case 1: k = 1. Then x1 = y1 and (x2 , . . . , xn ) := a ≺ b =: (y2 , . . . , yn ). By
the induction hypothesis, there exists an (n − 1) × (n − 1) doubly stochastic
matrix X such that a = Xb. So x = Ay for doubly stochastic
 
1 0
A= .
0 X

Case 2: k > 2. Since x1 < y1 , there exist t ∈ [0, 1) such that

x1 = ty1 + (1 − t)yk .

Now Y y = (x1 , y2 , . . . , yk−1 , tyk + (1 − t)y1 , yk+1 , yn ), where

 
t 1−t
 Ik−2 
Y = 1 − t


t
In−k

is doubly stochastic. Put c := (x2 , . . . , xn ) and d := (y2 , . . . , yk−1 , tyk + (1 −

t)y1 , yk+1 , yn ). Since xn 6 · · · x2 6 x1 6 yk−1 6 · · · 6 y2 , we have for all
26l 6k−1
Xl Xl
xi 6 yi .
i=2 i=2

Now for k 6 l 6 n, we have

l
X l
X l
X k−1
X l
X
xi = xi −x1 6 yi −(ty1 +(1−t)yk ) = yi +(tyk +(1−t)y1 )+ yi .
i=2 i=1 i=1 i=2 i=k+1

It follows that c ≺ d. By the induction hypothesis, there exists an (n − 1) ×

(n − 1) doubly stochastic matrix Z such that c = Zd. Now
      
x1 1 0 x1 1 0
x= = = Y y.
c 0 Z d 0 Z
 Review of Matrix Theory 17

Since the product of two doubly stochastic matrices is doubly stochastic, A =

(1 ⊕ Z)Y is doubly stochastic, and x = Ay.
For (2) ⇒ (1), suppose x = Ay for some doubly stochastic A = (aij ) ∈
Rn×n . For each 1 6 k 6 n − 1, let
k
X
Ck,j = aij
i=1

be the sum of the first k entries of the

Pnj-th column. Because A is doubly
stochastic, we have 0 6 Ck,j 6 1 and j=1 Ck,j = k. For 1 6 k 6 n − 1, we
have
k
X k X
X n n
X
xi = aij yj = Ck,j yj
i=1 i=1 j=1 j=1
k−1
X n
X
6 Ck,j yj + Ck,j yk
j=1 j=k
k−1
X k−1
X
= Ck,j yj + (k − Ck,j )yk
j=1 j=1
k−1
X
= Ck,j (yj − yk ) + kyk
j=1
k−1
X
6 (yj − yk ) + kyk
j=1
k
X
= yj .
j=1

Let e = (1, 1, . . . , 1) ∈ Rn . Then A⊤ e = e and

n
X n
X
xi = hx, ei = hAy, ei = hy, A⊤ ei = hy, ei = yi ,
i=1 i=1

where hu, vi = v ⊤ u denotes the usual inner product on Rn . So x ≺ y.

(2) ⇔ (3). This follows from the Birkhoff Theorem (Theorem 1.5).
(3) ⇔ (4). We only show (3) ⇒ (4), for the converse is trivial. Suppose
x ∈ conv Sn · y. Then there exist permutation matrices P1 , P2 , . . . , Pm ∈ Sn
and nonnegative numbers c1 , c2 , . . . , cm ∈ R such that
m
X
x = c1 (P1 y) + c2 (P2 y) + · · · + cm (Pm y) and ci = 1.
i=1
18 Matrix Inequalities and Their Extensions to Lie Groups

For any choice of permutation matrices Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Ql ∈ Sn and nonnegative

l
X
numbers d1 , d2 , . . . , dl ∈ R such that dj = 1, we have
j=1

l
X l
X m
X l X
X m
dj (Qj x) = dj Qj ci (Pi y) = a(j,i) R(j,i) y
j=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1

with R(j,i) = Qj Pi ∈ Sn and a(j,i) = dj ci > 0 and

  !
Xl X m l X
X m X l m
X
a(j,i) = dj ci =  dj  ci = 1.
j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1

This shows that conv Sn · x ⊂ conv Sn · y.

The following result, as a special case of [Wey49, Lemma], is useful in later
chapters.
Theorem 1.7. (Weyl) If x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Rn+ and y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) ∈ Rn+ ,
then
x ≺w-log y ⇒ x ≺w y.
In particular, x ≺log y implies x ≺w y.
We conclude this section with the following remark.
Remark 1.8. There are two important orderings that can be defined on the
real linear space Hn of all n × n Hermitian matrices:
(1) the Löwner order (a partial order) defined by

A6B ⇐⇒ B − A is positive semidefinite;

(2) the majorization (a preorder) defined by

A≺B ⇐⇒ λ(A) ≺ λ(B).

For A =
6 B in Hn , the two relations A 6 B and A ≺ B never coincide. This is
because
A 6 B ⇒ λi (A) 6 λi (B), ∀ i = 1, . . . , n.

Notes and References. Majorizations are extensively studied in the cele-

brated monograph [MOA11]. In this work, we are interested in matrix in-
equalities in the form of majorization and log-majorization, as well as their
extensions in Lie groups and Lie algebras.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
indistinct. Davies read it: “The enemy is in full retreat.” But for this
providential mistake, the battle of that day would have had a darker
record than we are making now; for the retreat, disastrous as it was,
would have been cut off, and Washington probably taken.
Believing the army victorious, these brave men bore the restraints
of their position more patiently, but still panted for a share in the
work.
At this time Beauregard’s telegraph, opposite the left of Davies’
position, had been working half an hour; and from lines of dust
concentrating there and at Davies’ front, he anticipated an attack,
and made disposition accordingly.
At five o’clock, the enemy appeared on the left, as Davies formed in
line parallel to Bull Run, and about eight hundred yards distant.
Between the hill which he occupied, and the slope down which they
came from the road, was the valley or ravine, about four hundred
yards from Hunt’s battery.
They filed down the road and formed in the valley, marching four
abreast, with their guns at right shoulder shift, shining like a ripple
of diamonds in the sunshine, and moving forward in splendid style.
At first Davies viewed them in silence, and standing still; but as the
column began to fill the valley, he changed front to the left, and
ordered the artillery to withhold its fire till the rear of the enemy’s
column presented itself, and directed the infantry to lie down on
their faces, and neither fire nor look up without orders. This was
done that the enemy might not learn his strength and charge on the
battery.
The rear of the column at last presented itself, an officer on
horseback bringing it up. Then an order to fire was given, and
Lieutenant Benjamin, a brave young fellow from West Point, fired
the first shot from a twenty-pound rifled gun.
A cloud of dust, with a horse rearing, and its rider struggling in the
midst, was all the result that could be observed. The rear of the
enemy’s column then took the double-quick down the valley, and six
pieces of artillery opened on them. The effect was terrible; at the
distance of only four hundred yards, the enemy took the raking
downward fire in all its fury. An awful cry rang up from the valley;
the men had been swept down like wheat before a scythe, and their
moans filled the air.
This murderous fire was repeated over and over again. There was
no waiting to swab the guns, but, fast as powder and ball could be
served, the ordnance sent out its volleys. The enemy made a
desperate stand, but every shot swept down the men in masses. A
vacant space appeared for a moment, then fresh men filed in. Twice
they attempted to reform and charge the battery, but the rapidity
with which the pieces were served, and the peculiar nature of the
ground, rendered every shot effective, and they were swept back, cut
down, speedily disorganized, and fled for the woods.
During all this action, Lieutenant-Colonel Marsh, of the Sixteenth,
and Colonel Pratt, of the Thirty-first (the former since killed, and the
latter wounded before Richmond), controlled their men perfectly.
Not an infantry shot was fired during the engagement. Balls from the
enemy struck the ground in volleys before the men, filling their eyes
with dust. No man gave way; they were compelled to change position
three times during the fight. Although so many of the enemy were
killed, this spot being named, in the secession reports, as giving the
heaviest mortality of the day, only two men of Davies’ command
were hurt. One man was wounded, and Lieutenant Craig, a brave
young officer from West Point, was killed.
This brilliant engagement, so important in its results, sprang out of
a singular series of accidents: first, in the mistake made in reading
Richardson’s dispatch, and again in a failure of orders. When the
main army began its retreat past Centreville, at four o’clock, Colonel
Miles sent his aid, Captain Vincent, to order Davies and his
command back to Centreville, but Vincent, instead of coming first to
Davies, stopped to give orders to Richardson, and two regiments of
Davies’ brigade, stationed to guard his rear. After ordering
Richardson back, Vincent came over the ravine to deliver his orders
to Davies, when he heard his firing on the extreme left, went back to
Centreville, to report, and returned just as the firing ceased, to direct
Colonel Davies to retire on Centreville.
Davies, ignorant that Richardson had already fallen back, rode
over to order his retreat, but to his astonishment, almost horror,
found that the whole brigade, with two regiments of his own forces
left to guard his rear, had been gone a full hour. Thus it happened
that this important engagement had been fought and won with a
single battery and two regiments of infantry, utterly alone and
unsupported on the deserted battle-field, against a large body of
men, endeavoring to sweep to the rear and cut off the army in its
retreat.
It was near six o’clock when this contest terminated—two hours
after the main army were in full retreat. If ever delay and accident
were providential on this earth, it was here; for brave as these men
were, no sane leader would have felt justified in exposing them to
such peril upon a deserted battle-field, and in the face of a whole
victorious army, after all chance of protection had been withdrawn.
When this band of victorious men reached Centreville, a stream of
jaded, wounded and heavy-hearted men were pouring through the
village, while General McDowell was making a desperate effort to
collect all the troops that still kept a show of organization, under his
own command. These troops were principally composed of the left
wing, which came off the ground in good order. McDowell, about
eight o’clock, left Centreville for Fairfax Court House. Before going
Colonel Miles was relieved from his command of the left wing, and
the following order, written on the back of a visiting card, was
handed to Colonel Davies:

Colonel Davies is consigned to the command of the left wing, as the troops are
now formed. By command,

J. B. Fry, a. a. g.

July 21.

Under this running order Colonel Davies assumed command of all

that was left of the army in Centreville, and marched them in good
order to Alexandria and Washington, Blenker’s division being the
last to leave the field. This gallant officer had been among the bravest
and most resolute in protecting the retreat, and had by his firmness
held the enemy in check during the afternoon and evening.
THE BATTLE-FIELD AT NIGHT.
At night the calm air, the gently falling dew, visited that blasted
earth sweetly as they had done the night before, when the valley was
fresh with verdure and beautiful with thrifty crops. But the scene it
presented was O, how different! In mercy the deep shadows cast by
the woods concealed its worst features, and the smoke had risen so
densely between earth and sky that the moon looked down upon it
mournfully, through a veil. The battle-field was still, save when the
solemn shiver of the leaves came like a painful and mighty sigh, or
the troubled waves of the Run continued it in hoarser murmurs. If
human moans broke the stillness, they were lost on that vast field,
and only heard by the pitying angels.
But solitary lights wandered over the field, like stars dropped by a
merciful heaven to light the departing souls through the valley and
shadow of death. They were indeed heavenly rays, for all that is
divine in human mercy sent them forth. Kind men, and more than
one heroic woman carried them from point to point over that dreary
battle-field, searching among the dead for those who, breathing yet,
might suffer for water or Christian comfort.
There was a house on the hill-top where Griffin’s battery had
stood, and where the Connecticut troops had planted the stars and
stripes in their last desperate charge. Through all the fight, a helpless
and frightened family had found precarious shelter in their own
dwelling. The household was composed of a son, a daughter, and the
mother, a gentle Christian woman, who had been confined to her bed
for years. There was no hopes of flight for her, poor soul, and neither
son nor daughter would abandon her when the storm of battle was at
their threshold. Hoping to find a place of safety, the devoted children
carried her to a neighboring ravine, sheltering her with their own
persons.
But this spot became at last more dangerous than the house. So
the harassed children took their parent back to her home, and
placing her in bed again, stood to screen her from the bullets that
broke like hail through the walls and windows. While her house was
riddled with cannon balls and musket shot, and the missiles of death
plunged through her chamber and into her bed, three bullets pierced
her frail person. Still she outlived the battle tempest that raged
around her, a tempest that she had not even dreamed of approaching
her dwelling when that fatal day dawned upon it. When the night
came on she died peacefully, and the troubled moon looked down on
a mournful scene here also. Within the riddled walls and under the
torn roof, this gentle woman lay, in a quieter sleep than she had
known for many a long night, and by her bed knelt the bereaved
children who had dared so much, weeping that a life so peaceful
should have met that violent ending. Painful as this was, there lay
many poor soldiers on the field that hour, whose children would
never have the privilege of weeping over them.
In an orchard of young trees, just forming their fruit, lay many a
prostrate Southron, sent to his long account; for the enemy had
suffered terribly there. The northern verge of the field was blackened
by a fine grove in which a Georgia regiment had fought, and under its
black shadows the dead lay thick and numerous. Here Lamar had
fallen, and many a brave Northman slept side by side with the foe he
had sent into eternity but a moment in advance of himself. The fatal
hill, scorched and blackened in every tree and blade of grass, was
strewn with the dead of both sections, among them some of the
bravest leaders that the enemy boasted.
There have been rumors of great cruelty on the battle-field after
the fight was over—of men prowling like fiends among the dead, and
murdering the wounded; but these things should be thrice proven
before we believe them of American citizens. Rumor is always triple-
tongued, and human nature does not become demoniac in a single
hour. One thing is certain, many an act of merciful kindness was
performed that night, which an honest pen should prefer to record.
Certain it is that Southern soldiers in many instances shared their
water—the most precious thing they had—with the wounded Union
men. A soldier passing over the field found two wounded combatants
lying together—one was a New Yorker, the other a Georgian. The
poor wounded fellow from New York cried out piteously for water,
and the Georgian, gathering up his strength, called out: “For God’s
sake give him drink; for I called on a New York man for water when
his column was in retreat, and he ran to the trench at the risk of his
life and brought it to me!”
One brave young enemy lost his life after passing through all the
perils of the battle, in attempting to procure drink for his wounded
foes.
If there were individual instances of cruelty on either side, and this
is possible—let us remember that there was kindness too; and when
the day shall come—God grant it may be quickly—when we are one
people again, let the cruelty be forgiven and the kindness only
remembered.
And now our record of the battle of Bull Run is at an end. It was
valiantly contended on both sides, and won only from superior
numbers and reinforcements of fresh troops, poured upon the
exhausted soldiery of the Union. To gain this contest the South sent
her best and very bravest generals. Her forces were led by
Beauregard and Johnston, both experienced officers. They were also
cheered by the near presence of Jefferson Davis, who came upon the
field when the victory was assured, amid the shouts of a soldiery, the
more enthusiastic because they had just been rescued from almost
certain defeat. They had the choice of position and had fortified it
with wonderful skill; a thorough knowledge of the country, and
troops unwearied by long marches—indeed, the advantages were
altogether on their side. The North, never dreaming that an open
rebellion would break out, was utterly dependant on undisciplined
troops; while the South, having premeditated resistance to the
Government, had been drilling men for months, if not years. There
was no one point except in the actual bravery of their leaders and
soldiers in which the enemy was not superior to the Union forces. In
personal valor the Southerners themselves have never claimed to
surpass that exhibited in this battle by their foes.
The smallest estimate of the forces actually engaged on the
Southern side is eighteen thousand—while the Union forces which
crossed Bull Run did not at any time count more than thirteen
thousand. One brigade of McDowell’s eighteen thousand was not in
the action, except in a vain effort to check the retreat. This brigade, of
General Tyler’s division, was stationed at Stone Bridge, and never
advanced upon the actual battle-field. The attack repulsed by Davies
on the left wing, at Blackburn’s Ford, took place nearly two hours
after the army was in retreat.
In the loss of officers, the enemy was even more unfortunate than
the Union army. The fall of General Bee, one of the bravest of their
leaders, Bartow, Colonel Thomas, Colonel Hampton, Colonel
Johnson, Lamar, and others, shed a gloom upon their victory, and
greatly weakened their cause in the future. The Union loss was
heavy, for the men who fell or were taken prisoners were among the
bravest that marched with the army, but the loss of officers by death
was inferior to that of the enemy, and though Corcoran and Wilcox
were wounded and taken prisoners, they were not lost to their
country. In ordnance and munitions of war the conquest was less
important than might have been supposed. Many of the Union guns
were rescued from the field during the next day. Of the fine horses
attached to the ordnance a large proportion were killed, and others
were saved by their drivers, who cut the traces, and rode them from
the scene of battle. The loss in killed and wounded on the Union side,
was 481 killed, 1,011 wounded, and 1,216 missing: total, 2,708. That
of the enemy numbered, by Beauregard’s report, 393 killed, 1,200
wounded.
The victory was a very important one to the South, as it gave
prestige and force to a rebellion which, had the position of things
been reversed, would, it is probable, have expired before the year
went out. But in the North it only served to arouse the people to a
pitch of excitement hitherto unparalleled; if troops had been sent
forth in regiments before, they came in brigades after that defeat.
 WESTERN VIRGINIA.

Virginia has three grand divisions, viz.: the Eastern Section,

extending from tide-water up to the Blue Ridge Mountains; the Great
Valley between the Blue Ridge and the Alleghanies; Western
Virginia, stretching from the Great Valley to the Ohio river.
The contest between the people of the eastern and western
portions of the State for supremacy had been one of long duration,
dating back for many years. Internal improvements appear to have
been the cause of this dissension—Western Virginia claiming that the
East had enjoyed and been benefitted by them hitherto exclusively.
In this jealousy the inhabitants of the Valley sympathized, and the
completion of the James River and Kanawha Canal to the Ohio
aroused a feeling of such bitter rivalry, that even the Governor
favored the project of a division of the State. Added to this was the
complaint of unequal taxation. The eastern portion being the large
slaveholding district, paid per capita, without regard to value, while
the wealth of the western, consisting of land and stock, was taxed ad
valorem. This strife, of necessity, was carried from the people into
the Legislature, and stormy debates followed. The feeling of the West
on the slavery question, also, added fuel to the flame, and the loyalty
of that section was attacked.
In the State Convention which passed the ordinance of secession,
the western delegates took a firm and bold stand against it. When the
Act was about to be consummated, great excitement prevailed in
regard to the action of the western members, both inside and out of
the Convention, and some of them were obliged to leave Richmond.
In May, when the ordinance was submitted to the people, the north-
western counties voted largely against it.
A Convention assembled at Wheeling, and a committee was
appointed, which called a General Convention to convene at the
same place on the 11th of June. Forty counties were represented
there, and an ordinance was passed for the reorganization of the
State Government, every officer to be obliged to swear allegiance
anew to the United States, and to repudiate the Richmond
Convention. A Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and other State
officers were elected, and the Legislature was summoned “to
assemble at the United States District Courtroom in the city of
Wheeling, at noon, on the first day of July, 1861.” Both houses met
and organized. The Governor’s Message was sent intogether with a
document from Washington, officially recognizing the new
Government. The message recommended an energetic co-operation
with the Federal Government. United States Senators were then
elected.
On the 20th of August, the Convention passed an ordinance
creating a new State, to be called “Kanawha.” It included thirty-nine
counties, and provision was made for the admission of other
adjoining counties, if a majority of the people of each desired it. The
question of forming a separate State was submitted to the popular
vote on the 24th of October, and resulted in favor of the proposition
by a large majority. Since that time other counties have signified a
desire to be admitted.
Western Virginia became the scene of military operations directly
after the war broke out, following in close order upon the occupation
of Alexandria. On the 30th of May Colonel Kelly took possession of
Grafton, and the occupation of Phillipi followed but a few days
subsequently. Federal troops also crossed the Ohio and entered
Parkersburgh. General McClellan had command of this portion of
the State, it being included in the Ohio district, and issued his
proclamation to the Union men of Virginia.
A series of offensive and defensive events now followed each other
in rapid succession, exhibiting bravery and determination
unparalleled in history—individual heroism and uncomplaining
endurance of suffering—rapid marches and brilliant charges, that
shine in letters of fire upon the pages of our war history, and threw
the prestige of early victory about the northern arms. It was here that
McClellan won his first laurels—here that chivalric Lander met a
soldier’s death—here that Kelly was wounded, till for weeks and
weeks his life was despaired of. In fact, Western Virginia is covered
with victorious Union battle-fields. She has indeed given their
greenest laurels to many of our generals.
The military department of Ohio, in which Western Virginia was
included, was organized on the tenth of May, and Major-General
George B. McClellan appointed to the command. His headquarters
were at Cincinnati. On the 26th of the same month he issued his first
proclamation, declaring that his mission was one of fraternity, union,
and protection, and called upon all patriotic men to aid him in his
endeavors to accomplish this holy purpose. The proclamation
produced a marked effect. Colonel Kelly, of Wheeling, Virginia, had
prior to that date organized a regiment for the defence of the Union,
known as the “First Virginia Volunteers.”
On Friday, the 24th of May, about twelve hundred rebels had
assembled and marched from Harper’s Ferry to Grafton, a town on
the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, and forced many citizens to
abandon their homes and fly for safety, leaving their property to be
pillaged by the enemy. About one hundred of the fugitives reached
Morgantown. The inhabitants of that place, warned of their danger,
immediately flew to arms and prepared for a vigorous defence.
Finding that they were not to be molested, and burning for revenge,
they marched, 1000 strong—their ranks having been swelled by
friends from Pennsylvania—towards Grafton.
The rebels became alarmed and fled to Philippi, in Bourbon
county, about 17 miles southward. On Monday, the 27th,
detachments of Ohio and Indiana troops crossed the Ohio river at
Wheeling and at Marietta, on their way, also, to Grafton.
Simultaneously, Colonel Kelly’s regiment of Virginians moved
forward in the same direction, but the bridges having been
destroyed, their march was delayed. At every point, and especially at
Mannington and Fairmount, they were received with great
enthusiasm and hailed as deliverers.
 BATTLE OF PHILLIPI.

Brigadier-General Thomas A. Morris arrived at Grafton on the

evening of June 1st, and took command of the Union forces. An
expedition was immediately organized to surprise and attack the
rebels at Philippi, under the command of Colonel Porterfield. The
troops left in two divisions. The First Virginia regiment, part of the
Ohio Sixteenth, and the Seventh Indiana, under Colonel Kelly,
moved eastward, by rail to Thornton, a distance of five miles, and
from there marched on twenty-two miles, to Phillipi, reaching the
town on the lower side. The second division, consisting of the Sixth
and Seventh Indiana, the Fourteenth Ohio, and a section of artillery
under Lieutenant-Colonel Sturgis, met by detachments at Webster,
on the North-western Virginia railroad, and marched twelve miles to
Phillipi. The combined forces were commanded by Colonels Dumont
and Lander, and at eight o’clock on the night of the 2d of June
marched forward through one of the most overwhelming storms
known to our country that year. Lander had been detailed to a
special command by General Morris, and in the terrible march that
followed, through darkness, mud and rain he led the way, sometimes
exploring the route three miles ahead of his forces, in the midst of
profound darkness, and through mud so deep and tenacious that
every forward step was a struggle. The men followed, bravely toiling
through the miry soil, staggering forward in thick darkness, and
pelted by the rain so violently that they could not have seen the road
had it been daylight. Still, not a murmur was heard. Against the
whole force of the elements the brave fellows struggled on, eager for
the storm of fire which was soon to follow the deluge that poured
upon them. Now and then Lander’s majestic form, seated upon his
charger, would loom upon them through the darkness, returning
from his scouting duty to cheer them with his deep, sympathetic
voice, which aroused them like a trumpet. Thus they moved on,
supported by one stern purpose, through woods, across valleys, and
over hills, the storm drowning their approach till they drew up on the
edge of the town overlooking the enemy. But it was not altogether a
surprise. Just before they reached the town the troops had passed a
farm-house. A woman within that house sprang from her bed as she
saw the lines of troops filing slowly by in the misty gray of the dawn,
and guessed their object. She instantly aroused her little son and sent
him by a short cross-road to give the alarm. The boy was quick of
foot, but the hopes of conflict had so aroused the energies of these
jaded men that he was but a few minutes in advance of them.
Lander’s troops took position on a hill across the river and below
the town, commanding it and the encampments around. He at once
planted two pieces of artillery, and prepared to open fire at exactly
four o’clock, the hour agreed upon for the attack, which was to be
made at once by both divisions. Lander was to assault them in front,
while Kelly was to attack the rear and cut off all retreat. But Lander
found his division alone before the enemy. The terrible night, the
almost impassable roads, and a march of twenty-two miles had
delayed Kelly’s forces, and when he did arrive it was to come in by
mistake below the town.
The presence of Lander’s troops aroused the town and threw it
into terrible commotion. In vain Lander searched the distant hills,
impatient for Kelly’s appearance. The hour of attack had arrived and
passed. The men became impatient as their leader, who, in his
indomitable courage commenced the battle with a portion of his
forces.
When Lander gave the order his eager men sprang to their posts,
and the artillery opened fire. As the first gun awoke its thunder on
the encampments, Kelly advanced, but in the wrong direction. He
instantly comprehended Lander’s action, and with prompt courage
charged upon the encampments. The batteries had by this time
obtained the range, and were pouring in their messengers of terror
and death, tearing through tents and cabins, and scattering the
rebels like chaff in every direction. After firing a volley of musketry,
Lander advanced.
Colonel Kelly’s command was close upon the enemy, the Virginia
troops in advance, the Henry Clay Guards in front, and Colonel Kelly
and Captain Fordyce leading, while Colonel Lander’s force came
rushing down the hill to the bridge and joined in an impetuous
pursuit of the fugitives. Colonel Kelly, who, with a bravery
amounting almost to rashness, had been foremost from the very first,
was shot by a concealed foe, the ball entering the left breast and
lodging beneath the shoulder blade. As his men conveyed him to a
place of safety, this brave man, while in the agony of his pain,
exclaimed, “I expect I shall have to die. I would be glad to live, if it
might be, that I might do something for my country, but if it cannot
be, I shall have at least the consolation of knowing that I fell in a just
cause.” But he was not destined to be cut off in the zenith of his fame
and usefulness. After a few weeks of danger and anguish he was
again performing noble duty for the country he loved so well.
In this dashing victory fifteen of the rebels were killed, a large
number wounded, and ten taken prisoners, together with a quantity
of camp equipage, arms, &c. The organization of the rebels at that
point was completely broken up, and the men driven to the
mountains.
 GREAT DESTRUCTION OF RAILROAD
PROPERTY.

The bitter animosity of the rebel army was strikingly illustrated on

the 23d July, by the destruction of a large number of locomotives and
cars of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad by secession troops under
the command of Colonel Thomas J. Jackson. Forty-eight locomotives
and three hundred cars were blown up or burned, one of the engines
having been previously wrapped in our national ensign. The road had
been rendered impassable by the destruction of bridges, and,
therefore, the rolling stock could not have been rendered available.
The estimated loss was about three-quarters of a million of dollars.
 GENERAL McCLELLAN IN WESTERN
VIRGINIA.

General McClellan, during the time that elapsed since his

appointment, had been actively engaged in organizing his forces and
getting them ready for efficient service. Scouting parties—an
important feature of his department—were detailed for service, and
raw troops replaced by experienced men. Colonel Kelly, who was
now recovering from the wounds received at Phillipi, had been
appointed by Governor Pierpont to the command of the Virginia
brigade of volunteers. Gens. Morris, Hill, Schenck and Schleich were
assigned their respective positions—the telegraph lines were put in
order, and new ones for military purposes were constructed where
necessary. The arrival of fresh regiments, among which Colonel
Rosecranz made his appearance, added great activity to the
department. On the side of the enemy were Generals Robert S.
Garnett, Henry A. Wise, Ex-Governor, John B. Floyd, Ex-Secretary of
War, and Colonel Pegram.
Columns of Federal troops were dispatched to attack the enemy,
simultaneously, at three different points, and the first collision
between them occurred on the 10th of July.
 BATTLE OF SCAREYTOWN.

A brigade of rebels under Governor Wise, crossed the Alleghanies

to the head-waters of the Kanawha, with the intention of attacking
the rear of McClellan’s forces, while General Garnett was prepared to
meet him in front. General Cox had been dispatched to this section
with a considerable force of Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky troops, and
was encamped on the Kanawha about ten miles below its junction
with Scarey Creek. Hearing that a portion of the rebel force had
taken position at Scareytown, but four miles above his camp, on the
other side of the river, and were entrenching themselves there,
General Cox dispatched a force of about 1,000 men, consisting of the
Twelfth Ohio, a portion of the Twenty-first Ohio, the Cleveland
Artillery, and a detachment of cavalry, all under the command of
Colonel Lowe, to dislodge the rebels if practicable. The column was
ferried across the stream, and moved cautiously onward, the scouts
scouring the country as they advanced. The enemy was found to be
entrenched on the opposite side of Pocatallico Creek, here
intersecting the Kanawha, protected by breastworks, and also
sheltered by woods, about half way up a slope of high hills, having
two pieces of artillery in position, while a portion of their infantry
had possessed themselves of ten or twelve log huts, constituting the
village of Scareytown, in which they had improvised loop-holes. The
Federal troops were met by a discharge from the rebel battery as
soon as they made their appearance; but the artillery of Captain
Cotton soon got in position, and returned the fire of the enemy with
good effect. The infantry were now ordered to advance, and rushed
fearlessly across the stream, which was fordable, in the face of a
heavy fire. The left wing, composed of portions of the Twelfth and
Twenty-first Ohio, had reached the enemy’s entrenchments, but
being unsupported by the right, and a fresh regiment of the rebels
appearing on the ground, they were compelled to retreat, leaving
many of their dead and wounded on the field.
The loss of the Federal forces by this engagement was nine killed,
thirty-eight wounded, and three missing. Of the rebel loss we have no
record.
A great misfortune of the day, however, was the capture of five of
the principal officers of General Cox’s command, who were not
attached to the expedition.
Colonels Woodruff and De Villers, Lieutenant-Colonel Neff, and
Captains Austin and Hurd, prompted by an eager desire to witness
the engagement in which they were not assigned a part, rode up the
banks of the river to its junction with the creek, and hearing a loud
shout, were led to believe that the Federal forces were victorious.
They procured a skiff, crossed the creek, and inadvertently strayed
within the enemy’s lines, where they were all made prisoners.
 HOW THE ENEMY WAS TO BE ATTACKED.
General Garnett had at this time nearly 10,000 men under his
command, and occupied a position at Beverly, on Tygart’s Valley
river, Randolph Co., in a valley of the Alleghany Mountains. Two
good roads unite at an acute angle at this place, one leading
westwardly to Buckhannon, and the other north-west to Phillipi. A
mountainous ridge crosses both these roads in front of Beverly, and
at each point of intersection General Garnett had an intrenched
camp. The first was on the road to Buckhannon, called the Rich
Mountain Camp, under command of Colonel Pegram; and the
second, on the road to Phillipi, called Laurel Hill Camp, under
General Garnett’s personal command.
Early on the morning of the 11th of July, General Rosecrans was
dispatched to attack Colonel Pegram, and dislodge him from his
position. General Morris was to make a simultaneous movement on
the position held by General Garnett.
 BATTLE AT RICH MOUNTAIN.

July 12, 1862.

The rebel entrenchments at Rich Mountain were very strong in

their position, and were evidently to be taken only by a great sacrifice
of life. They had rolled great trees down the steep sides of the
mountain, and banding their branches into a general entanglement,
filled the open spaces with earth and stones. The dense forest on all
sides made the approach almost impassable. General Rosecranz was
accordingly directed to attack them in their rear. For this purpose he
took with him the Eighth and Tenth Indiana, and the Nineteenth
Ohio, and under the leadership of an experienced guide, started
about daylight to ascend the mountain. The path was exceedingly
difficult and tedious, most of the distance being through thick laurel
underbrush, almost impenetrable woods, and a broken, rocky region,
which gave them a toilsome march of nearly nine miles. Meantime a
courier from General McClellan with dispatches for General
Rosecrans, had been captured by the rebels, who instantly took the
alarm, and a body of 2,500 men were sent to the top of the mountain
by a short route which they commanded, and on the arrival of the
Union forces they stood ready for defence. The rebels had three
cannon in place, and awaited the troops, facing that part of the road
where they would emerge from the timber. For some time there was
skirmishing, the rebels firing their cannon into the woods at random.
The Union troops had no cannon, and left the sheltering trees only
long enough to deliver a volley at any one time, and then retired back
to the bushes. They thus succeeded in drawing the enemy from his
earthworks, and leading him into the open fields, where the
encounter took place.