Centralizers of elements in the orthogonal, symplectic and unitary groups

For d=0 or d=1,

let H and the H-skew-symmetric or H-Hamiltonian normal form \mathcal{A}, with eigenvalue 0, be as in (3.3):

in which \theta_{r,j}\in{-1,1} with \theta_{r,j}=1 for \mathbb{F}=\mathbb{C}, and \Gamma_{\alpha_r} is defined by (?). Next, the Jordan canonical form \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{A}) of \mathcal{A} and its corresponding transition matrix U (i.e. \mathcal{A}=U^{-1}\mathcal{J}(\mathcal{A})U) are:

In view of (Proof),

we have \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{A})X=X\mathcal{J}(\mathcal{A}) for X=U Q U^{-1} with U as in (Proof) and H-orthogonal/H-symplectic Q. Proposition 5.2 (?) yields the solution of this equation X=[X_{rs}]_{r,s=1}^{N} with an \mu_r-by-\mu_s block matrix X_{rs} whose blocks are \alpha_r-by-\alpha_s rectangular Toeplitz of the form (?), where \mu_r:=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2m_r, & d + \alpha_r \textrm{ even} \\ m_r, & d + \alpha \textrm{ odd} \end{array} \right..

Next, H-orthogonality or H-symplecticity of Q=U^{-1} X U is described by the equation (5.1):

We shall now write (U^{-1})^{T} H U^{-1} as a product of block diagonal matrices, one with diagonal and one with anti-diagonal blocks; this is the trick of the proof.

We observe that \Gamma_{\alpha_r}^{T}=\Gamma_{\alpha_r}^{-1}=(-1)^{\alpha_r +1}\Gamma_{\alpha_r}^{} and we deduce

where E_{\alpha_r} is as in (?)

and the diagonal matrix with alternating \pm 1 is:

and \Gamma_{\alpha_r}=(-1)^{\alpha_r} E_{\alpha_r} F_{\alpha_r}. By combining (Proof) and (Proof) with (Proof), we get

Using this and recalling \mu_r=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2m_r, & d + \alpha_r \textrm{ even} \\ m_r, & d + \alpha \textrm{ odd} \end{array} \right., we can now write

B applyng (Proof), the equation (Proof) transforms to

We conjugate (Proof) with \Omega from Lemma 5.4, and manipulate it:

in which we denote \Theta_{r}=\oplus_{j=1}^{m_r}\vartheta_{r,j}. In view of a special form of X (obtained above),

we conclude that \mathcal{X} is of the form (?) for \alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_N), \mu=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_N).

By conjugating with appropriate permutation matrices, we transform \widetilde{D}_r for d+\alpha_r even in (Proof) to the standard symplectic matrices:

Since \Phi_r^{-1} E_{\alpha_r}(I_{\mu_r})\Phi_r=E_{\alpha_r}(I_{\mu_r}),

the matrix \mathcal{F} in (Proof) stays intact after conjugation by \Phi, so the equation (Proof) becomes:

This equation is of the form (?), with \mathcal{F} and \mathcal{B}=\mathcal{C} as in (?), and \mathcal{X}=\mathcal{Y} of the form (?), all for \alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_N), \mu=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_N).

Finally, H-Orthogonal or H-symplectic solutions of the equation \mathcal{A}Q=Q\mathcal{A} are of the form:

with \mathcal{Y} as a solution of (Proof), which is provided by Lemma 4.1.

Let H and the H-skew-symmetric (d=0) or H-Hamiltonian (d=1) normal form \mathcal{A}, with one eigenvalue \lambda\in \mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}, be:

Let \Gamma_{\alpha_r} be as in (?), and denote by \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{A}) the Jordan canonical form of \mathcal{A}^{} and by U the corresponding transition matrix U (i.e. \mathcal{A}=U^{-1}\mathcal{J}(\mathcal{A}) U):

We conjugate \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{A}) by an appropriate permutation matrix to collect together blocks corresponding to the same eigenvalue (\lambda or -\lambda). We use an analog of (?) (with \alpha=2) for block matrices. Define a 2m-by-2m block permutation matrix whose blocks are identities and zero matrices:

in which e_j(I_{\alpha}) is a column (n rows) with I_{\alpha} in the j-th row and {\alpha}-by-{\alpha} zero matrices otherwise. Post-multiplication by \Omega_{2,m}(I_{\alpha}) (with \Omega_{2,m}^{T}) puts the 1st, the 3rd, …, the (2m-1)-th column, the 2nd, the 4th,…, the 2m-th (row) together. Thus:

Similarly as in (Proof), we can permute blocks of possibly different dimensions:

where e_j(I_{m_r\alpha_r}) is a column (2N rows) with I_{m_r\alpha_r} in the j-th row and the appropriate zero matrices elsewhere. Multiplication by \widetilde{\Omega}_2 (by \widetilde{\Omega}_2^{T}) from the right (left) arranges columns (rows) in the same order as would \Omega_{2,N}(I_{\alpha}). From (Proof) we get

By setting \widetilde{U}=\widetilde{\Omega}^TU, the equation \mathcal{A}Q=Q\mathcal{A} (see (Proof)) with H-orthogonal/H-symplectic Q, transforms to:

Proposition 5.2 gives the solution X=X_1\oplus X_2 of (Proof), where X_1,X_2 are N-by-N block matrices such that their blocks (X_1)_{rs}, (X_2)_{rs} are m_r-by-m_s block matrices whose blocks are \alpha_r-by-\times \alpha_s rectangular Toeplitz of the form (?).

Using (5.1) for U=\widetilde{U}, we describe H-orthogonality/H-symplecticity of Q by:

We again use \Gamma_{\alpha}^{-1}=(-1)^{\alpha +1}\Gamma_{\alpha}^{}, but in contrast to (Proof), we now derive

Using (Proof) we now decompose (U^{-1})^{T} H U^{-1} (the trick of the proof):

Furthermore, (Proof) yields the decomposition of \widetilde{\Omega}^{T} \big((U^{-1})^{T} H U^{-1}\big) \widetilde{\Omega}:

By applying (Proof) to (Proof) we obtain:

By conjugating both hand sides of the last equation of (Proof) by \Omega from Lemma 5.4, and then slightly manipulating it, we deduce

where \mathcal{B}_1:= \bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\big( (-1)^{\alpha_r-1} \Gamma_{\alpha}(I_{m_r}) \big), in which \Gamma_{\alpha_r}(I_{m_r}) is a block exchange matrix with altermating \pm I_{m_r} on the anti-diagonal (see (?)). We observe that the form of the solution X=X_1\oplus X_2 of (Proof) yields \mathcal{X}_1, \mathcal{X}_2\in \mathbb{T}^{\alpha,\mu}; cf. (?). Therefore, H-orthogonal or H-symplectic solution Q of \mathcal{A}Q=Q\mathcal{A} is of the form

This completes the proof of the theorem.

For d=0 and d=1, respectively, consider real \widetilde{J}-skew-symmetric and \widetilde{J}-Hamiltonian normal form, with eigenvalues \pm ib for b\in \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}:

where \Delta_{\alpha_r,d} and J_{\alpha_r}^{\mathbb{R}}(0,b) are defined by (?) and (?), respectively.

Using

the real canonical form \mathcal{A} is transformed to the complex

canonical form:

We now apply Theorem 3.5 (the complex case) to \mathcal{A}' with H''; see also (Proof). We obtain H''-orthogonal/H''-symplectic solution Q' of the equation \mathcal{A}'Q'=Q' \mathcal{A}':

where U,\widetilde{\Omega}, \mathcal{B}_1 are as in (Proof), (Proof), (Proof), respectively, and \Omega is from Lemma 5.4. Moreover, an H-orthogonal/H-symplectic solution of \mathcal{A} Q= Q\mathcal{A} is:

We now make two crucial observations. First, when inspecting

we notice that

Second, we apply (Proof) and (Proof) to the real conjugate of Q in (Proof) (via R\widetilde{\Omega}^{}(\Omega^{} \oplus \Omega^{})),

to observe:

Using this, the matrix \widetilde{Q} in (Proof), with \mathcal{Y}=\mathcal{X}\oplus (\mathcal{X}^{T})^{-1}, can be rewritten as

Therefore, \widetilde{Q} (and hence Q by (Proof)) is real if and only if \mathcal{D}\mathcal{X}\mathcal{D}^{-1}+\mathcal{D}\mathcal{B}^{-1}(\mathcal{X}^T)^{-1}\mathcal{B}\mathcal{D}^{-1} is real, and \mathcal{D}\mathcal{X}\mathcal{D}^{-1}-\mathcal{D}\mathcal{B}^{-1}(\mathcal{X}^T)^{-1}\mathcal{B}\mathcal{D}^{-1} is purely imaginary. Hence

To conclude the proof we apply Lemma 4.1 for \star=*, \varepsilon=-1 and B_r=\delta_r I_{p_r,q_r}.

For d=0 and d=1, respectively, consider real \widetilde{J}-skew-symmetric and \widetilde{J}-Hamiltonian normal form, with eigenvalues \lambda:=a+ib\in \mathbb{C}\setminus (\mathbb{R}\cup i\mathbb{R}):

Via the appropriate transition matrix P, with S^T H S=H, we transform it to complex H-skew-symmetric/H-Hamiltonian normal form:

Similarly, as we obtained (Proof) from (Proof), we use a suitable permutation matrix to collect together blocks of \mathcal{A}' in (Proof), corresponding to eigenvalues \pm \lambda and \pm \overline{\lambda}:

Applying Theorem 3.5 with (Proof) (the complex case) to \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}', we obtain H'-orthogonal/H'-symplectic solution Q' of the equation \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}'Q'=Q' \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}':

where U,\widetilde{\Omega}, \mathcal{B}_1 are as in (Proof), (Proof), (Proof), respectively, and \Omega is from Lemma 5.4. Moreover, H-orthogonal/H-symplectic solution Q=\big(S \widetilde{\Omega}'\big) Q' \big((\widetilde{\Omega}')^{-1} S^{-1} \big), of \mathcal{A}Q=Q\mathcal{A}, is real precisely when its real conjugate, via R^{}\widetilde{\Omega}', is real:

Furthermore, (Proof) is real if and only if Q_2=Z \overline{Q}_1 Z.

Using \widetilde{\Omega} from (Proof), we consider an equivalent equation:

Since \widetilde{\Omega}^{T}U\widetilde{\Omega}= I_n \oplus \bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\big(\bigoplus_{k=1}^{m_r} \Gamma_{\alpha_r}\big) =I_n \oplus B_1^T with B_1^TB_1=I_n (see (Proof)), we get

therefore, we have:

The equation (Proof) then splits into a system of two (equivalent) equations

It yields \mathcal{X}_2=\overline{\mathcal{X}}_1, which is equivalent to the fact that Q is real.

Given a H-Hermitian normal form \mathcal{A}, we solve \mathcal{A}Q=Q\mathcal{A} with H-unitary Q.

1. Suppose

   \begin{aligned} \mathcal{A} =\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\Big( \bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} \big( J_{\alpha_r}(\lambda)\oplus J_{\alpha_r}(\overline{\lambda}) \big)\Big),\qquad H=\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\Big( \bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} E_{2\alpha_r} \Big). \end{aligned}

   We conjugate \mathcal{A} by an appropriate permutation matrix to collect together blocks corresponding to the same eigenvalue (\lambda or \overline{\lambda}). We use \widetilde{\Omega} from (Proof) to get

   \widetilde{\mathcal{J}}(\mathcal{A}):=\widetilde{\Omega}^{T}\mathcal{A}\widetilde{\Omega}= \bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\big( \bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} J_{\alpha_r}(\lambda)\big)\oplus \bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\big( \bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} J_{\alpha_r}(\overline{\lambda})\big), \quad

   Thus \mathcal{A}Q=Q\mathcal{A} (see (Proof)) with H-unitary Q, transforms to

   \widetilde{\mathcal{J}}(\mathcal{A})X=X\widetilde{\mathcal{J}}(\mathcal{A}), \qquad X=\widetilde{\Omega}^T Q \widetilde{\Omega},\quad \qquad (Q^T H Q=H).

   Proposition 5.2 gives the solution X=X_1\oplus X_2 of (Proof), where X_1,X_2 are N-by-N block matrices such that their blocks (X_1)_{rs}, (X_2)_{rs} are m_r-by-m_s block matrices whose blocks are \alpha_r-by-\times \alpha_s rectangular Toeplitz of the form (?).

   The trick of this proof is to write

   \begin{aligned} H=D K \qquad D:=\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\Big(\bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} \big(E_{\alpha_r}\oplus E_{\alpha_r} \big) \Big), \quad K: =\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\big(\bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} \begin{bsmallmatrix} 0 & I_{\alpha_r}\\ I_{\alpha_r} & 0 \end{bsmallmatrix} \big). \end{aligned}

   and then to get the decomposition of \widetilde{\Omega}^{T} H \widetilde{\Omega}:

   \begin{aligned} &\widetilde{\Omega}^{T} H \widetilde{\Omega} =(\widetilde{\Omega}^{T} D \widetilde{\Omega})(\widetilde{\Omega}^{T} K \widetilde{\Omega})=B \widetilde{K},\\ B:=\widetilde{\Omega}^{T} D \widetilde{\Omega} =E \oplus E, \quad & E:=\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\big(\bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} E_{\alpha_r} \big), \quad \widetilde{K}:=\widetilde{\Omega}^{T} V \widetilde{\Omega} = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & I_{n}\\ I_{n} & 0 \end{bmatrix},\, n:=\sum_{r=1}^{N}\alpha_r m_r. \end{aligned}

   In view of (5.1) for U=\widetilde{\Omega}^T, we then characterize the H-unitarity of Q by:

   \begin{aligned} \widetilde{\Omega}^{T} H \widetilde{\Omega} = & X^{*} \big(\widetilde{\Omega}^{T}H \widetilde{\Omega}\big) X, \qquad \quad (Q=\widetilde{\Omega} X \widetilde{\Omega}^T)\\ B \widetilde{K} = & X^{*} B \widetilde{K} X \\ E \oplus E = & (X_1^{*} \oplus X_2^{*}) ( E \oplus E) (\widetilde{K} (X_1 \oplus X_2) \widetilde{K}^{-1})\\ E \oplus E = & (X_1^{*} \oplus X_2^{*}) ( E \oplus E) (X_2 \oplus X_1)\\ E = & X^{*}_1 E X_2,\qquad \quad \big( E = X^{*}_2 E X_1 \big). \end{aligned}

   By conjugating both hand sides of the last equation of (Proof) by \Omega from Lemma 5.4, recalling \mathcal{F}=\Omega^{T}E\Omega, and slightly manipulating it, we deduce

   \begin{aligned} \Omega^{T}E \Omega = & (\Omega^{T} X_1\Omega)^{*}(\Omega^{T}E\Omega)(\Omega^{T} X_2\Omega)\\ \mathcal{F}= & \mathcal{X}^{*}_1\mathcal{F} \mathcal{X}_2 \qquad \qquad (\mathcal{X}_1:=\Omega^{T} X_1\Omega, \quad \mathcal{X}_2:=\Omega^{T} X_2\Omega), \end{aligned}

   The form of the solution X=X_1\oplus X_2 of (Proof) yields \mathcal{X}_1, \mathcal{X}_2\in \mathbb{T}^{\alpha,\mu} (cf. (?).

   Therefore,

   Q

   is of the form

   \begin{aligned} &Q=\widetilde{\Omega}(X_1\oplus X_2)\widetilde{\Omega}^{T} =\Psi^{-1} \big(\mathcal{X}_1\oplus (\mathcal{X}^{*}_1)^{-1}\big)\Psi, \qquad \mathcal{X}_1\in \mathbb{T}^{\alpha,\mu},\\ &\qquad \Psi:=(I\oplus \mathcal{F})\big((\Omega^{T}\oplus \Omega^{T})\widetilde{\Omega}^{T}\big). \end{aligned}

2. Let the H-Hermitian normal form \mathcal{A} with one eigenvalue \lambda\in \mathbb{R} be:

   \begin{aligned} \mathcal{A} =\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\Big( \bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} \big( J_{\alpha_r}(\lambda)\big)\Big),\qquad H=\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\Big( \bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} \big( \vartheta_{r,j} E_{\alpha_r} \big) \Big) \end{aligned}

   By proposition 5.2 (?) yields the solution of the equation \mathcal{A}Q=Q\mathcal{A} is of the form Q=[Q_{rs}]_{r,s=1}^{N} with an \mu_r-by-\mu_s block matrix Q_{rs} whose blocks are \alpha_r-by-\alpha_s rectangular Toeplitz of the form (?).

   Next, we write H=EB, where E is as in (?) and B:=\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\big(\bigoplus_{j=1}^{m_r} \vartheta_{r,j} I_{\alpha_r}\big), hence H-unitarity of Q yields

   \begin{aligned} H = & Q^{*} H Q\\ E B = & E Q^{*}(E B) Q\\ B = & ( E Q^{*} E ) B Q. \end{aligned}

   We conjugate (?) with \Omega from Lemma 5.4 and get:

   \begin{aligned} &\mathcal{D} = \mathcal{F}\mathcal{Q}^{*}\mathcal{F}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{Q},\\ \mathcal{Q}:=\Omega^{T}Q\Omega, \qquad &\mathcal{B}:= \Omega^{T} B \Omega=\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N} \big( \bigoplus_{j=1}^{\alpha_r} I_{p_r,q_r} \big) \qquad (\mathcal{F}= \Omega^{T}E\Omega). \end{aligned}

   Due to a special form of Q (described above), \mathcal{Q} is of the form (?), thus Lemma 4.1 for \star=*, \varepsilon=1, \mathcal{X}=\mathcal{Q} and \mathbb{B} as in (?) provides the solution of (?).

This completes the proof of the theorem.

(?) The proof of the Algorithm ? has three steps. First, the symmetry relation (Proof) reduces the equation (?) to its upper block-triangular part, and the Toeplitz structure reduces each block equation to its first row. Second, we show that the coefficients A_j^{r(r+p)} with p\geq 1 occur linearly with coefficient (A_0^{rr})^\star B_r, whereas all other terms depend only on previously determined coefficients. This gives the recursion.

Since \varepsilon^{\alpha_r-1}B_{r}^{\star}=\varepsilon^{d}B_{r},

one easily verifies that

hence

Thus compare the first rows of the blocks in the upper triangular parts of \mathcal{F}X^{\star}\mathcal{F}\mathcal{B} X and \mathcal{B}. By simplifying the notation with

and using the standard kth row and column notation \mathcal{M}_{(k)} and \mathcal{M}^{(k)}, the equation (?) can be written as the following a system of equations:

First, to calculate A_0^{rr} for r\in \{1,\ldots,N\}, we observe (Proof) for p=0, j=1. Since

we deduce \sum_{k=1}^{N}(\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_{rk})_{(1)}((\mathcal{Y})_{kr})^{(1)}= (A_0^{rr})^{\star}B_{r}A_0^{rr}, and it implies:

To complete the Step 1 of Algorithm ?, we arbitrarily set \mathcal{X}_{rs} for N\geq 2, r>s.

Next, we inductively compute the remaining entries of \mathcal{X}_{r(r+p)} for 0\leq p\leq N-r. Throughout the following recursive computation, we assume

Fix p\in \{0,\ldots, N-1 \}, j\leq \alpha_r-1, but not p=j=0, and solve (Proof) to get A_j^{r(r+p)} (loops j=0:\alpha_1-1, p=1:N-1 of Algorithm ?), assuming that we have already determined A_{n}^{rs} for

We have

where T_{\varepsilon}(A_0,\ldots,A_{\alpha-1}):=[T_{jk}]_{j,k=1}^{\alpha}, T_{jk}=0 for j>k, T_{(j+1)(k+1)}=-T_{jk}, i.e.

for \varepsilon=-1 this is an \alpha-by-\alpha block alternating upper triangular Toeplitz matrix.

To simplify the computations, we set (k,r,s\in \{1,\ldots,N\}, n\in \{0,1,\ldots, b_{rs}-1\}):

and by using the fact B_{r}^{\star}=\varepsilon^{\alpha_r+d-1}B_{r} for all r, we observe the following:

Furthermore, we obtain

In particular, for \xi_j^{r(r+p)} defined as in Algorithm ?, we deduce:

Next, we have

Hence, the last two terms in (Proof) for j+1 instead of j (N\geq r+1\geq 2) are:

For j,p\geq 0 with j+p\geq 1 we define

We combine (Proof) with (Proof), (Proof), (Proof), (Proof) to obtain:

Thus the equation for an off-diagonal entry A_j^{r(r+p)} with p\geq 1 is linear, while the equation for a diagonal entry A_j^{rr} with j\geq 1 has the form A^\star X+\varepsilon^{\beta} X^\star A=B. From (Proof) we get

\Psi^{krr}_{j-\alpha_r+\alpha_k}=\varepsilon^{\alpha_r-j+d-1}(\Psi^{krr}_{j-\alpha_r+\alpha_k})^{\star}, which further implies that \xi_j^{rr}, \Xi(j,r,0), \Lambda(j,r,0) and D_j^{rr} are of the same structure, e.g., (D^{rr}_{j})^{\star}=\varepsilon^{\alpha_r-j+d-1}D^{rr}_{j}.

Since (Proof) implies A_0^{rr}B_{r}^{-1}= ((A_0^{rr})^{\star}B_{r})^{-1}, the equation (Proof) has the solution A_j^{r(r+p)}=-A_0^{rr} B_{r}^{-1}D_j^{r(r+p)} for p\geq 1. Next, obtain A_j^{rr} by solving (Proof).

Its solution is X=(A^{\star})^{-1}(Z+\frac{1}{2}B) with Z^{\star}=-\varepsilon^{\beta}Z, where A^{\star}=(A_0^{rr})^{\star}B_{r}, \beta=\alpha_r-j+d-1, B=-D_j^{rr}, and hence (A^{\star})^{-1}= A_0^{rr}(B_{r})^{-1}. Thus Z parametrizes precisely the homogeneous solutions of the equation for A_j^{rr}, j\ge1. Moreover, D_j^{r(r+p)} with p\geq 1 depends only on A_n^{rs}, with n,r,s satisfying (Proof).

It remains to count the free parameters to obtain the dimension formula

in (?). In case \star=T, \varepsilon=-1, each A_{0}^{rr} contributes \frac{1}{2}m_r (m_r-1), any A_{j}^{rr} for j\geq 1 contributes \frac{1}{2}m_r (m_r+(-1)^{\alpha_r-j+d}), and any A_{j}^{rs} for r>s gives m_r m_s:

Simplifying this expression yields the stated formula in (?).

The cases \star=T, \varepsilon=1 and \star=*, \mathbb{F}=\mathbb{C} are analogous.

(?) Solutions of the equation (?) form a group, since for any pair of solutions \mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{X}_2 of (?), their product \mathcal{X}_1\mathcal{X}_2^{-1} is a solution as well:

We now prove that among solutions of the equation (?), we have matrices

(3.2); these were observed in view of [TSOS, Examples 3.2]. To confirm this fact,

we shall prove its consistency with Algorithm ? in (?).

Consider \mathcal{X}=[\mathcal{T}_{rs}]_{r,s=1}^N such that \mathcal{T}_{rs}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \hspace{-1mm}\bigoplus_{j=1}^{\alpha_r}I_{m_r}, & r=s\\ \hspace{-1mm}0, & r\neq s \end{array} \right. for \{r,s\}\not\subset\{p,t\} and

where 0\leq k \leq \alpha_t-1. We inspect whether \mathcal{X} of this form could be obtained by Algorithm ?. The definition in the first line of the algorithm gives

and it yields the computation in the if statement (j\in \{1, \ldots,\alpha_r-1\}) of the first for loop of the algorithm for r\in \{t,p\}:

where (Z_j^{r})^{\star}=\varepsilon^{\alpha_r-j+d-1} Z_j^{r}. One can easily see that recursions (Proof) for Z_j^{r}=0 give

where a_n has the initial term a_0:= -\frac{1}{2} and satisfies the functional equation:

Let f(t):=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n t^{n} be the generating function associated with a_n. For \varepsilon=-1, \alpha_p-\alpha_t even or \varepsilon=1, we obtain the equation f(t)=-\frac{1}{2}t(f(t))^2-\frac{1}{2}, which yields f(t)=-\frac{1}{t}\big(1-(1-t)^{\frac{1}{2}}\big)=-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\binom{1/2}{n}t^{n-1} and a_{n}=(-1)^{n+1}\binom{1/2}{n+1}=-\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}\frac{1}{n+1}{\binom{2n}{n}}. For \varepsilon=-1, \alpha_p-\alpha_t odd, we have f(t)=-\frac{1}{2}tf(t)f(-t)-\frac{1}{2}, hence f(t)+f(-t)=-1 and f(t)=\frac{1}{2}tf(t)(1+f(t))-\frac{1}{2}. Finally, f(t)=-\frac{1}{2t}\big(2-t-(t^2+4)^{\frac{1}{2}}\big)=-\frac{1}{2}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{4^n}\binom{1/2}{n}t^{2n-1} with a_{2n}=0, a_{2n-1}=\frac{1}{4^{(n+1)/2}}\binom{1/2}{(n+1)/2}=\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{2^{2n-1}n}{\binom{2n-2}{n-1}} for n\geq 1.

It is also straightforward to see the consistency of Algorithm ? with \mathcal{T}_{pt} in (Proof).

Assume \mathcal{X}\in \mathbb{T}^{\alpha,\mu} is a solution of (?). From (?), it follows that ((\mathcal{X})_{rr})_{11}=A_0^{rr} with (A_0^{rr})^{\star}B_rA_0^{rr}=B_r. Therefore, \mathcal{X}=\mathcal{O}\mathcal{V}_0, where \mathcal{O}=\bigoplus_{r=1}^{N}\big(\bigoplus_{j=1}^{\alpha_r} A_0^{rr} \big), and \mathcal{V}_0\in \mathbb{T}^{\alpha,\mu} has upper unitriangular diagonal blocks. We now describe the inductive procedure of multiplying \mathcal{V}_0 by matrices

of the form (3.2). Suppose that after (j-1)th steps of this process we obtain \mathcal{Z}=\mathcal{V}_0\mathcal{V}_1\cdots \mathcal{V}_j\in \mathbb{T}^{\alpha,\mu}, with \mathcal{V}_1,\ldots, \mathcal{V}_j of the form (3.2), and such that the blocks under the main diagonal in the first p-1 columns vanish (i.e. \mathcal{Z}_{rs} vanishes for p,r>s), and the first \alpha_p-\alpha_{p+1}+n columns of \mathcal{Z}_{rp} for r>p vanish.

Let t be the largest index such that (\mathcal{Z}_{tp})_{1(\alpha_p-\alpha_{p+1}+n+1)}\neq 0, i.e (\mathcal{Z}_{tp})_{(1)}= \begin{bsmallmatrix} 0 & \ldots & 0 & R_{n-\alpha_{p+1}+\alpha_t}^{tp} & \ldots & R_{\alpha_{t}-1}^{tp} \end{bsmallmatrix}, with all R_{j}^{tp}\in \mathbb{C}^{m_t\times m_p} and R_{n-\alpha_{p+1}+\alpha_t}^{tp}\neq 0. We multiply \mathcal{Z} with \mathcal{V}_{j}=\mathcal{V}_{p,t}(-R_{n-\alpha_{p+1}+\alpha_t}^{tp},n+\alpha_t-\alpha_{p+1}) in (3.2).

Then \mathcal{Z}':=\mathcal{Z}\mathcal{V}_{j} is of the same form as \mathcal{Z}, but in addition (\mathcal{Z}_{tp}')^{(n+\alpha_t-\alpha_{p+1}+1)}= 0. Indeed, it is apparent that \mathcal{Z}_{rs}'=0 for r, p >s and (\mathcal{Z}_{rp}')_{1(\alpha_p-\alpha_{p+1}+n+1)}= 0 for r>t, while a quick computation yields:

Eventually, this process yields a block upper unitriangular matrix \mathcal{W}=\mathcal{V}_0\mathcal{V}_1\cdots \mathcal{V}_m:

where \mathcal{V}_1,\ldots, \mathcal{V}_m are of the form (3.2). Observe that the inverse \mathcal{W}^{-1} is block upper unitriangular, and \mathcal{V}_1^{-1},\ldots, \mathcal{V}_m^{-1} are of the form (3.2), as well. Applying Algorithm ? for \mathcal{X}_{rs}=\mathcal{W}_{rs}=0 with r>s, yields that \mathcal{W} is as in (3.1).

The isotropy group at \mathcal{A} under H-orthogonal or H-symplectic or H-unitary similarity consists of all H-orthogonal or H-symplectic or H-unitary matrices Q satisfying the Sylvester equation:

We now transform (Proof) to (5.1) by inserting \mathcal{A}=U^{-1} \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{A}) U and Q=U^{-1}XU.

Since \exp({J_{\alpha}(\lambda)})=e^{\lambda }\exp({J_{\alpha}(0)}) and \exp({J_{\alpha}(0)})=S_{\alpha}J_{\alpha}(1)S_{\alpha}^{-1} for some transition matrix S_{\alpha}, the equation \exp({J_{\alpha_r}(\lambda)})Y =Y \exp({J_{\alpha_s}(\lambda)}) transforms to

By Proposition 5.2 (?) every solution \widetilde{Y} of (Proof) is of the form (?), so the dimension of the solution space of (Proof) (or (Proof)) is b_{rs}=\min\{\alpha_r,\alpha_s\}. Since upper triangular Toeplitz matrices commute, any matrix of the form (?) solves (Proof). Thus these solutions form a b_{rs}-dimensional subspace, and hence constitute the whole solution space.