Proving or disproving product of two stochastic matrices is stochastic
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two stochastic matrices. Does the product $PQ$ have to be stochastic? Prove or disprove.
What Im thinking is that since matrix multiplication is only defined for two matrices $A$ and $B$ where $A$ has the same amount of columns as $B$ has rows and vice versa. Therefore the product of any two stochastic matrices $P$ and $Q$ can not be stochastic. This is not much of a proof though.
linear-algebra matrices proof-writing stochastic-matrices
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two stochastic matrices. Does the product $PQ$ have to be stochastic? Prove or disprove.
What Im thinking is that since matrix multiplication is only defined for two matrices $A$ and $B$ where $A$ has the same amount of columns as $B$ has rows and vice versa. Therefore the product of any two stochastic matrices $P$ and $Q$ can not be stochastic. This is not much of a proof though.
linear-algebra matrices proof-writing stochastic-matrices
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two stochastic matrices. Does the product $PQ$ have to be stochastic? Prove or disprove.
What Im thinking is that since matrix multiplication is only defined for two matrices $A$ and $B$ where $A$ has the same amount of columns as $B$ has rows and vice versa. Therefore the product of any two stochastic matrices $P$ and $Q$ can not be stochastic. This is not much of a proof though.
linear-algebra matrices proof-writing stochastic-matrices
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two stochastic matrices. Does the product $PQ$ have to be stochastic? Prove or disprove.
What Im thinking is that since matrix multiplication is only defined for two matrices $A$ and $B$ where $A$ has the same amount of columns as $B$ has rows and vice versa. Therefore the product of any two stochastic matrices $P$ and $Q$ can not be stochastic. This is not much of a proof though.
linear-algebra matrices proof-writing stochastic-matrices
linear-algebra matrices proof-writing stochastic-matrices
edited Aug 17 at 12:45
Rodrigo de Azevedo
12.7k41753
12.7k41753
asked May 9 at 9:46
Pame
34917
34917
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Note that 'stochastic' can have three meanings: the matrix $A$ might be row stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1$ for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$, column stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ij}=1$ for each column $jin{1,ldots,n}$, or both, and in that case the matrix is called doubly stochastic. I show a way to prove that the product of two row stochastic matrices is again row stochastic, and I leave the proof for column stochastic matrices to you. Obviously if a matrix is doubly stochastic, it follows from the first two cases that the product is again doubly stochastic.
Now suppose that we have two row stochastic matrices $A$ and $B$, so for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ we have $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1=sum_{i=1}^nB_{ji}$. Now consider the sum of the elements on row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ of the product of the two matrices, $AB$. We find
$$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nleft(sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}right)=sum_{k=1}^nleft(A_{jk}left(sum_{i=1}^nB_{ki}right)right)=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}cdot1=1.$$
You can swap the order of the summation because the sum is finite and because each $A_{jk}$ does not depend on $i$. You can also see this by rewriting the summation as $sum_{i=1}^nlangle A_{j},B_irangle=langle A_j,(1,ldots,1)^Trangle=1$, with $A_j^T$ the $j$'th row of $A$, and $B_i$ the $i$'th column of $B$, and using the linearity of the inner product. Thus the product is indeed row stochastic.
Note that troughout I assumed that a stochastic matrix is square, which is true by definition.
Note that it simplifies a lot if you recognize that a matrix being row stochastic is equivalent to $Ae=e$, with $e:=(1,ldots,1)^Tinmathbb{R}^{ntimes1}$.
So this assumes we have two $nxn$ matrices? Where does the $k$ come from? Also, what about the case where you're multiplying a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix?
– Pame
May 9 at 10:42
Stochastic matrices are by definition sqaure matrices, and the product is defined only if they are both $ntimes n$, indeed. See the definition of matrix multiplication, $(AB)_{ij}:=sum_{k=1}^nA_{ik}B_{kj}$, so $k$ is just the summation variable. The notation, of course, is arbitrary. The product of a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix is, in general, neither row nor column stochastic. Consider $begin{bmatrix}0.8&0.2\0.6&0.4 end{bmatrix}cdotbegin{bmatrix}0.7&0.9\0.3&0.1 end{bmatrix}$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 10:47
I think what I don't understand is how you get $$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$$.
– Pame
May 9 at 11:07
Given $j$ and $i$, $(AB)_{ji}=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$, this is true by definition of matrix multiplication. We have outer summation because we sum over all elements on row $j$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 11:09
I tried proving the column stochastic case here math.stackexchange.com/questions/2774019/…
– Pame
May 9 at 17:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
This answer is a bit late, but I did want to point t out that you can easily get the result for row-stochastic matrices from column-stochastic matrices (and vice versa).
Let A and B be two row-stochastic matrices and suppose we know the product of column stochastic matrices is column-stochastic. Observe that,
$$AB = ((AB)^T)^T = (B^TA^T)^T$$
by properties of transpose of a matrix. Let us consider $B^TA^T$. It is easy to see that the transpose of a row-stochastic matrix is column-stochastic by definition (and vice versa). Thus, $B^T$ and $A^T$ are column stochastic and by our assumption, it must then be the case that $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic. Since $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic, then it's transpose $(B^TA^T)^T = AB$ is row stochastic.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Note that 'stochastic' can have three meanings: the matrix $A$ might be row stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1$ for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$, column stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ij}=1$ for each column $jin{1,ldots,n}$, or both, and in that case the matrix is called doubly stochastic. I show a way to prove that the product of two row stochastic matrices is again row stochastic, and I leave the proof for column stochastic matrices to you. Obviously if a matrix is doubly stochastic, it follows from the first two cases that the product is again doubly stochastic.
Now suppose that we have two row stochastic matrices $A$ and $B$, so for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ we have $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1=sum_{i=1}^nB_{ji}$. Now consider the sum of the elements on row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ of the product of the two matrices, $AB$. We find
$$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nleft(sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}right)=sum_{k=1}^nleft(A_{jk}left(sum_{i=1}^nB_{ki}right)right)=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}cdot1=1.$$
You can swap the order of the summation because the sum is finite and because each $A_{jk}$ does not depend on $i$. You can also see this by rewriting the summation as $sum_{i=1}^nlangle A_{j},B_irangle=langle A_j,(1,ldots,1)^Trangle=1$, with $A_j^T$ the $j$'th row of $A$, and $B_i$ the $i$'th column of $B$, and using the linearity of the inner product. Thus the product is indeed row stochastic.
Note that troughout I assumed that a stochastic matrix is square, which is true by definition.
Note that it simplifies a lot if you recognize that a matrix being row stochastic is equivalent to $Ae=e$, with $e:=(1,ldots,1)^Tinmathbb{R}^{ntimes1}$.
So this assumes we have two $nxn$ matrices? Where does the $k$ come from? Also, what about the case where you're multiplying a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix?
– Pame
May 9 at 10:42
Stochastic matrices are by definition sqaure matrices, and the product is defined only if they are both $ntimes n$, indeed. See the definition of matrix multiplication, $(AB)_{ij}:=sum_{k=1}^nA_{ik}B_{kj}$, so $k$ is just the summation variable. The notation, of course, is arbitrary. The product of a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix is, in general, neither row nor column stochastic. Consider $begin{bmatrix}0.8&0.2\0.6&0.4 end{bmatrix}cdotbegin{bmatrix}0.7&0.9\0.3&0.1 end{bmatrix}$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 10:47
I think what I don't understand is how you get $$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$$.
– Pame
May 9 at 11:07
Given $j$ and $i$, $(AB)_{ji}=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$, this is true by definition of matrix multiplication. We have outer summation because we sum over all elements on row $j$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 11:09
I tried proving the column stochastic case here math.stackexchange.com/questions/2774019/…
– Pame
May 9 at 17:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Note that 'stochastic' can have three meanings: the matrix $A$ might be row stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1$ for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$, column stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ij}=1$ for each column $jin{1,ldots,n}$, or both, and in that case the matrix is called doubly stochastic. I show a way to prove that the product of two row stochastic matrices is again row stochastic, and I leave the proof for column stochastic matrices to you. Obviously if a matrix is doubly stochastic, it follows from the first two cases that the product is again doubly stochastic.
Now suppose that we have two row stochastic matrices $A$ and $B$, so for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ we have $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1=sum_{i=1}^nB_{ji}$. Now consider the sum of the elements on row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ of the product of the two matrices, $AB$. We find
$$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nleft(sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}right)=sum_{k=1}^nleft(A_{jk}left(sum_{i=1}^nB_{ki}right)right)=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}cdot1=1.$$
You can swap the order of the summation because the sum is finite and because each $A_{jk}$ does not depend on $i$. You can also see this by rewriting the summation as $sum_{i=1}^nlangle A_{j},B_irangle=langle A_j,(1,ldots,1)^Trangle=1$, with $A_j^T$ the $j$'th row of $A$, and $B_i$ the $i$'th column of $B$, and using the linearity of the inner product. Thus the product is indeed row stochastic.
Note that troughout I assumed that a stochastic matrix is square, which is true by definition.
Note that it simplifies a lot if you recognize that a matrix being row stochastic is equivalent to $Ae=e$, with $e:=(1,ldots,1)^Tinmathbb{R}^{ntimes1}$.
So this assumes we have two $nxn$ matrices? Where does the $k$ come from? Also, what about the case where you're multiplying a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix?
– Pame
May 9 at 10:42
Stochastic matrices are by definition sqaure matrices, and the product is defined only if they are both $ntimes n$, indeed. See the definition of matrix multiplication, $(AB)_{ij}:=sum_{k=1}^nA_{ik}B_{kj}$, so $k$ is just the summation variable. The notation, of course, is arbitrary. The product of a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix is, in general, neither row nor column stochastic. Consider $begin{bmatrix}0.8&0.2\0.6&0.4 end{bmatrix}cdotbegin{bmatrix}0.7&0.9\0.3&0.1 end{bmatrix}$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 10:47
I think what I don't understand is how you get $$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$$.
– Pame
May 9 at 11:07
Given $j$ and $i$, $(AB)_{ji}=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$, this is true by definition of matrix multiplication. We have outer summation because we sum over all elements on row $j$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 11:09
I tried proving the column stochastic case here math.stackexchange.com/questions/2774019/…
– Pame
May 9 at 17:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Note that 'stochastic' can have three meanings: the matrix $A$ might be row stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1$ for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$, column stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ij}=1$ for each column $jin{1,ldots,n}$, or both, and in that case the matrix is called doubly stochastic. I show a way to prove that the product of two row stochastic matrices is again row stochastic, and I leave the proof for column stochastic matrices to you. Obviously if a matrix is doubly stochastic, it follows from the first two cases that the product is again doubly stochastic.
Now suppose that we have two row stochastic matrices $A$ and $B$, so for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ we have $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1=sum_{i=1}^nB_{ji}$. Now consider the sum of the elements on row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ of the product of the two matrices, $AB$. We find
$$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nleft(sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}right)=sum_{k=1}^nleft(A_{jk}left(sum_{i=1}^nB_{ki}right)right)=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}cdot1=1.$$
You can swap the order of the summation because the sum is finite and because each $A_{jk}$ does not depend on $i$. You can also see this by rewriting the summation as $sum_{i=1}^nlangle A_{j},B_irangle=langle A_j,(1,ldots,1)^Trangle=1$, with $A_j^T$ the $j$'th row of $A$, and $B_i$ the $i$'th column of $B$, and using the linearity of the inner product. Thus the product is indeed row stochastic.
Note that troughout I assumed that a stochastic matrix is square, which is true by definition.
Note that it simplifies a lot if you recognize that a matrix being row stochastic is equivalent to $Ae=e$, with $e:=(1,ldots,1)^Tinmathbb{R}^{ntimes1}$.
Note that 'stochastic' can have three meanings: the matrix $A$ might be row stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1$ for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$, column stochastic, so $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ij}=1$ for each column $jin{1,ldots,n}$, or both, and in that case the matrix is called doubly stochastic. I show a way to prove that the product of two row stochastic matrices is again row stochastic, and I leave the proof for column stochastic matrices to you. Obviously if a matrix is doubly stochastic, it follows from the first two cases that the product is again doubly stochastic.
Now suppose that we have two row stochastic matrices $A$ and $B$, so for each row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ we have $sum_{i=1}^nA_{ji}=1=sum_{i=1}^nB_{ji}$. Now consider the sum of the elements on row $jin{1,ldots,n}$ of the product of the two matrices, $AB$. We find
$$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nleft(sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}right)=sum_{k=1}^nleft(A_{jk}left(sum_{i=1}^nB_{ki}right)right)=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}cdot1=1.$$
You can swap the order of the summation because the sum is finite and because each $A_{jk}$ does not depend on $i$. You can also see this by rewriting the summation as $sum_{i=1}^nlangle A_{j},B_irangle=langle A_j,(1,ldots,1)^Trangle=1$, with $A_j^T$ the $j$'th row of $A$, and $B_i$ the $i$'th column of $B$, and using the linearity of the inner product. Thus the product is indeed row stochastic.
Note that troughout I assumed that a stochastic matrix is square, which is true by definition.
Note that it simplifies a lot if you recognize that a matrix being row stochastic is equivalent to $Ae=e$, with $e:=(1,ldots,1)^Tinmathbb{R}^{ntimes1}$.
edited May 10 at 8:58
answered May 9 at 10:19
Václav Mordvinov
1,934421
1,934421
So this assumes we have two $nxn$ matrices? Where does the $k$ come from? Also, what about the case where you're multiplying a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix?
– Pame
May 9 at 10:42
Stochastic matrices are by definition sqaure matrices, and the product is defined only if they are both $ntimes n$, indeed. See the definition of matrix multiplication, $(AB)_{ij}:=sum_{k=1}^nA_{ik}B_{kj}$, so $k$ is just the summation variable. The notation, of course, is arbitrary. The product of a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix is, in general, neither row nor column stochastic. Consider $begin{bmatrix}0.8&0.2\0.6&0.4 end{bmatrix}cdotbegin{bmatrix}0.7&0.9\0.3&0.1 end{bmatrix}$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 10:47
I think what I don't understand is how you get $$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$$.
– Pame
May 9 at 11:07
Given $j$ and $i$, $(AB)_{ji}=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$, this is true by definition of matrix multiplication. We have outer summation because we sum over all elements on row $j$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 11:09
I tried proving the column stochastic case here math.stackexchange.com/questions/2774019/…
– Pame
May 9 at 17:28
|
show 1 more comment
So this assumes we have two $nxn$ matrices? Where does the $k$ come from? Also, what about the case where you're multiplying a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix?
– Pame
May 9 at 10:42
Stochastic matrices are by definition sqaure matrices, and the product is defined only if they are both $ntimes n$, indeed. See the definition of matrix multiplication, $(AB)_{ij}:=sum_{k=1}^nA_{ik}B_{kj}$, so $k$ is just the summation variable. The notation, of course, is arbitrary. The product of a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix is, in general, neither row nor column stochastic. Consider $begin{bmatrix}0.8&0.2\0.6&0.4 end{bmatrix}cdotbegin{bmatrix}0.7&0.9\0.3&0.1 end{bmatrix}$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 10:47
I think what I don't understand is how you get $$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$$.
– Pame
May 9 at 11:07
Given $j$ and $i$, $(AB)_{ji}=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$, this is true by definition of matrix multiplication. We have outer summation because we sum over all elements on row $j$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 11:09
I tried proving the column stochastic case here math.stackexchange.com/questions/2774019/…
– Pame
May 9 at 17:28
So this assumes we have two $nxn$ matrices? Where does the $k$ come from? Also, what about the case where you're multiplying a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix?
– Pame
May 9 at 10:42
So this assumes we have two $nxn$ matrices? Where does the $k$ come from? Also, what about the case where you're multiplying a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix?
– Pame
May 9 at 10:42
Stochastic matrices are by definition sqaure matrices, and the product is defined only if they are both $ntimes n$, indeed. See the definition of matrix multiplication, $(AB)_{ij}:=sum_{k=1}^nA_{ik}B_{kj}$, so $k$ is just the summation variable. The notation, of course, is arbitrary. The product of a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix is, in general, neither row nor column stochastic. Consider $begin{bmatrix}0.8&0.2\0.6&0.4 end{bmatrix}cdotbegin{bmatrix}0.7&0.9\0.3&0.1 end{bmatrix}$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 10:47
Stochastic matrices are by definition sqaure matrices, and the product is defined only if they are both $ntimes n$, indeed. See the definition of matrix multiplication, $(AB)_{ij}:=sum_{k=1}^nA_{ik}B_{kj}$, so $k$ is just the summation variable. The notation, of course, is arbitrary. The product of a row stochastic matrix and a column stochastic matrix is, in general, neither row nor column stochastic. Consider $begin{bmatrix}0.8&0.2\0.6&0.4 end{bmatrix}cdotbegin{bmatrix}0.7&0.9\0.3&0.1 end{bmatrix}$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 10:47
I think what I don't understand is how you get $$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$$.
– Pame
May 9 at 11:07
I think what I don't understand is how you get $$sum_{i=1}^n(AB)_{ji}=sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$$.
– Pame
May 9 at 11:07
Given $j$ and $i$, $(AB)_{ji}=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$, this is true by definition of matrix multiplication. We have outer summation because we sum over all elements on row $j$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 11:09
Given $j$ and $i$, $(AB)_{ji}=sum_{k=1}^nA_{jk}B_{ki}$, this is true by definition of matrix multiplication. We have outer summation because we sum over all elements on row $j$.
– Václav Mordvinov
May 9 at 11:09
I tried proving the column stochastic case here math.stackexchange.com/questions/2774019/…
– Pame
May 9 at 17:28
I tried proving the column stochastic case here math.stackexchange.com/questions/2774019/…
– Pame
May 9 at 17:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
This answer is a bit late, but I did want to point t out that you can easily get the result for row-stochastic matrices from column-stochastic matrices (and vice versa).
Let A and B be two row-stochastic matrices and suppose we know the product of column stochastic matrices is column-stochastic. Observe that,
$$AB = ((AB)^T)^T = (B^TA^T)^T$$
by properties of transpose of a matrix. Let us consider $B^TA^T$. It is easy to see that the transpose of a row-stochastic matrix is column-stochastic by definition (and vice versa). Thus, $B^T$ and $A^T$ are column stochastic and by our assumption, it must then be the case that $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic. Since $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic, then it's transpose $(B^TA^T)^T = AB$ is row stochastic.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This answer is a bit late, but I did want to point t out that you can easily get the result for row-stochastic matrices from column-stochastic matrices (and vice versa).
Let A and B be two row-stochastic matrices and suppose we know the product of column stochastic matrices is column-stochastic. Observe that,
$$AB = ((AB)^T)^T = (B^TA^T)^T$$
by properties of transpose of a matrix. Let us consider $B^TA^T$. It is easy to see that the transpose of a row-stochastic matrix is column-stochastic by definition (and vice versa). Thus, $B^T$ and $A^T$ are column stochastic and by our assumption, it must then be the case that $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic. Since $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic, then it's transpose $(B^TA^T)^T = AB$ is row stochastic.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This answer is a bit late, but I did want to point t out that you can easily get the result for row-stochastic matrices from column-stochastic matrices (and vice versa).
Let A and B be two row-stochastic matrices and suppose we know the product of column stochastic matrices is column-stochastic. Observe that,
$$AB = ((AB)^T)^T = (B^TA^T)^T$$
by properties of transpose of a matrix. Let us consider $B^TA^T$. It is easy to see that the transpose of a row-stochastic matrix is column-stochastic by definition (and vice versa). Thus, $B^T$ and $A^T$ are column stochastic and by our assumption, it must then be the case that $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic. Since $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic, then it's transpose $(B^TA^T)^T = AB$ is row stochastic.
This answer is a bit late, but I did want to point t out that you can easily get the result for row-stochastic matrices from column-stochastic matrices (and vice versa).
Let A and B be two row-stochastic matrices and suppose we know the product of column stochastic matrices is column-stochastic. Observe that,
$$AB = ((AB)^T)^T = (B^TA^T)^T$$
by properties of transpose of a matrix. Let us consider $B^TA^T$. It is easy to see that the transpose of a row-stochastic matrix is column-stochastic by definition (and vice versa). Thus, $B^T$ and $A^T$ are column stochastic and by our assumption, it must then be the case that $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic. Since $B^TA^T$ is column-stochastic, then it's transpose $(B^TA^T)^T = AB$ is row stochastic.
answered Nov 13 at 14:24
benguin
3,280518
3,280518
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2773442%2fproving-or-disproving-product-of-two-stochastic-matrices-is-stochastic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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