$A=\text{diag}\{\lambda_1,...,\lambda_n\}$, where $\lambda_i$ can be any number and not necessarily a small number, $\lambda_i>0$, $B$ is a positive definite symmetric matrix, and $\text{max}\{B_{ij} \}\ll \text{min}\{\lambda_i\}$.

Note that the perturbative calculation of square root of $I+B$ is very easy, where $B$ is a small matrix.
$$\sqrt{(I+B)}= I+\frac{1}{2}B-\frac{1}{8}B^2\cdots$$

In general how to calculate the square root of $A+B$ perturbatively?

This question is nontrivial because $\sqrt{A}\sqrt{B}\not=\sqrt{B}\sqrt{A}$, $\sqrt{AB}\not=\sqrt{A}\sqrt{B}$ and $\sqrt{AB}\not=\sqrt{B}\sqrt{A}$. If we write $C=A+B-I$ and $A+B=I+C$, $C$ is not a small quantity, therefore the perturbative expansion fails.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Might Mathematics be better suited for this math question? $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 28 '15 at 16:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @CountIblis $\sqrt{A}\sqrt{B}\not=\sqrt{B}\sqrt{A}$ and $\sqrt{AB}\not=\sqrt{A}\sqrt{B}$ $\endgroup$ – 346699 Jul 28 '15 at 16:20
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user34669: Much like just about any math technique, I'm sure it is useful in some fields of physics, but that does not mean it isn't a math question. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 28 '15 at 16:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Write $A+B = I + C$, where $C = A + B - I$ and check that $C$ satisfy your criterion of being small. $\endgroup$ – Phoenix87 Jul 28 '15 at 16:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $A+B$ is positive definite, so you can diagonalise this matrix and the entries will be perturbations of the eigenvalues of $A$. Hence if these are not all close to 1 (that is, if $A$ is not close to the identity matrix) I don't really see how to apply the perturbative method the OP refers to. $\endgroup$ – Phoenix87 Jul 28 '15 at 16:32


  1. The square root function has a Taylor expansion around $a>0$ $$\tag{1} \sqrt{a+b}~=~\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{2} \cr n\end{pmatrix}a^{\frac{1}{2}-n}b^n, \qquad |b| ~<~a. $$

  2. One may show that a possible non-commutative generalization reads $$ \sqrt{A+B}~=~\sqrt{A}+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{2} \cr n\end{pmatrix}\left( \left(L_B +{\rm ad} A \right)^{n-1}B \right) A^{\frac{1}{2}-n}, \qquad A~>~0,\qquad \tag{2}$$ and $B$ sufficiently small. Here $$ L_B(A):=BA \quad\text{and}\quad ({\rm ad} A)B~:=~[A,B] \tag{3}$$ are left composition and adjoint action, respectively.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How to prove this claim? Or where can I find the proof? $\endgroup$ – 346699 Aug 7 '15 at 2:51

An elementary way to proceed is as follows. Let's put an explicit factor of $\epsilon$ in $B$. The problem is then to solve the following equation for the matrix $X$:

$$A + \epsilon B = X^{2}$$

We want to do this perturbatively, so we assume that $X$ can be represented as:

$$X = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\epsilon^{n}X^{(n)}$$

We can then write:

$$ \begin{split} X^2 &= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\epsilon^{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n}X^{(k)}X^{(n-k)}= \left(X^{(0)}\right)^2 + \epsilon\left(X^{(0)}X^{(1)}+X^{(1)}X^{(0)}\right) \\&+\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\epsilon^{n}\left(X^{(0)}X^{(n)}+X^{(n)}X^{(0)} + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}X^{(k)}X^{(n-k)}\right) \end{split} $$

We then see that:

$$X^{0} = A^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

In components we can write this as:

$$X^{(0)}_{i,j} = \sqrt{\lambda_{i}}\delta_{i,j}$$

where the summation convention is modified so that contraction only happens when that would also happen absent any factors of the $\lambda$'s in an equation.

We can then simplify the expression $Y^{(n)} \equiv X^{(0)}X^{(n)} + X^{(n)}X^{(0)}$:

$$Y^{(n)}_{i,j} = \left(\sqrt{\lambda_{i}}+\sqrt{\lambda_{j}}\right)X^{(n)}_{i,j}$$

We thus have:

$$X^{(1)}_{i,j} = \frac{B_{i,j}}{\sqrt{\lambda_{i}}+\sqrt{\lambda_{j}}}$$

And the higher order terms are then obtained recursively from:

$$X^{(n+1)}_{i,j} = -\frac{\sum_{r=1}^{n}X^{(r)}_{i,k}X^{(n+1-r)}_{k,j}}{\sqrt{\lambda_{i}}+\sqrt{\lambda_{j}}}$$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.