Textbook Theory and Computation of Tensors Multi Dimensional Arrays 1St Edition Yimin Wei Ebook All Chapter PDF

Theory and Computation of Tensors:
Multi-Dimensional Arrays 1st Edition

Yimin Wei
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/theory-and-computation-of-tensors-multi-dimensional-
arrays-1st-edition-yimin-wei/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Multi dimensional Approaches Towards New Technology

Ashish Bharadwaj
https://textbookfull.com/product/multi-dimensional-approaches-
towards-new-technology-ashish-bharadwaj/
Compilation for Secure Multi party Computation 1st

Edition Niklas Büscher
https://textbookfull.com/product/compilation-for-secure-multi-
party-computation-1st-edition-niklas-buscher/
Simultaneous Systems of Differential Equations and

Multi-Dimensional Vibrations 1st Edition Luis Manuel
Braga Da Costa Campos
https://textbookfull.com/product/simultaneous-systems-of-
differential-equations-and-multi-dimensional-vibrations-1st-
edition-luis-manuel-braga-da-costa-campos/
Group Theory and Computation N.S. Narasimha Sastry
https://textbookfull.com/product/group-theory-and-computation-n-
s-narasimha-sastry/
Vector Analysis and Cartesian Tensors Bourne
https://textbookfull.com/product/vector-analysis-and-cartesian-
tensors-bourne/
Control of Magnetotransport in Quantum Billiards Theory

Computation and Applications 1st Edition Christian V.
Morfonios
https://textbookfull.com/product/control-of-magnetotransport-in-
quantum-billiards-theory-computation-and-applications-1st-
edition-christian-v-morfonios/
From Algebraic Structures to Tensors Digital Signal and

Image Processing Matrices and Tensors in Signal
Processing Set 1st Edition Gérard Favier (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/from-algebraic-structures-to-
tensors-digital-signal-and-image-processing-matrices-and-tensors-
in-signal-processing-set-1st-edition-gerard-favier-editor/
Mathematics and Computation A Theory Revolutionizing

Technology and Science Wigderson
https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematics-and-computation-a-
theory-revolutionizing-technology-and-science-wigderson/
The Three Dimensional Navier Stokes Equations Classical

Theory 1st Edition James C. Robinson
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-three-dimensional-navier-
stokes-equations-classical-theory-1st-edition-james-c-robinson/
Theory and
Computation
of Tensors
Theory and
Computation
of Tensors
Multi-Dimensional Arrays
WEIYANG DING
YIMIN WEI
AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON

NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, UK
525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further
information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as
the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website:
www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment
may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including
parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume
any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,
negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas
contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-0-12-803953-3 (print)

ISBN 978-0-12-803980-9 (online)
For information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/
Publisher: Glyn Jones

Acquisition Editor: Glyn Jones
Editorial Project Manager: Anna Valutkevich
Production Project Manager: Debasish Ghosh
Designer: Nikki Levy
Typeset by SPi Global, India

Contents
Preface v
I General Theory 1
1 Introduction and Preliminaries 3

1.1 What Arc Tensors? . 3
1.2 Basic Operations 6
1.3 Tensor Decompositions. 8
1.4 Tensor Eigenvalue Problems !O
2 Generalized Tensor Eigenvalue Problems 11

2.1 A Unified Framework. 11
2.2 Basic Definitions 13
2.3 Seventl Brlsic Properties 14
2.3.1 Number of Eigel1values . 14
2.3.2 Spectral R.adius . 15
2.3.3 Diagonalizable Tensor Pairs 15
2.3.4 Gcrshgori n Circle Theorem 16
2.3.5 Backward Error Analysis 19
2.4 Real Tensor Pairs. 20
2.4.1 The Crawford Number 21
2.4.2 Symmetric-Definite Tensor Pair s 22
2.5 Sign-Complex Spectral Radius 26
2.5.1 Definitions 26
2.5.2 Collatz-Wielalldt Formula 27
2.5.3 Properties for Single Tensors 29
2.5.4 The Componentwise Distance to Singularity. 31
2.5.5 Bauer-Fike TheOl'eul 33
2.6 An Illustrative Example 34
II Hankel Tensors 37
3 Fast Tensor-Vector Products 39

3.1 Hankel Tensors 39
3.2 Exponential Data Fit,ting 40
3.2.1 The One-Dimensional Case 40
3.2.2 The l\lultidimensiollal Case 42
3.3 Anti-Circulant Tensors 45
3.3.1 Diagonalization 46
3.3.2 Singular Vailles 47
viii CONTENTS
3.3.3 Block Tellsors . 49

3.4 Fast Hankel Tensor-Vector Product 50
3.5 Numerical Examples 53
4 Inheritance Properties 59
4.1 Inheritance Properties 59
4.2 The First luhcl'itance Property of Haukel Tensors. 61
4.2.1 A COllvolution Formula . 61
4.2.2 Lower-Order Implies Higher-Order 63
4.2.3 SOS Dccomposit.ioll of Strong Hankel Tensors. 65
11.3 The Second Inheritance Property of Hankel Tensors 66
4.3.1 Strong Hankel Tensors . . 66
4.3.2 A General Vandermolldc Decomposition of Hankel i\latrices 68
4.3.3 An Augmcnted Vandcnnonde Dccomposition of Hankel
Tensors 71
4.3.4 The Second Inherit.ance Propert.y of Hankel Tensors 75
4.4 The Third Inheritance Property of Hankel Tensors 77
III M-Tensors 79
5 Definitions and Basic Properties 81

5.1 Preliminaries 81
5.l.! Nonnegative Tensor 81
5.1.2 From Atf-l\fatl'ix to M-Tensol' 82
5.2 SpeclrR] Propert.ies of M-Tensors. 83
5.3 Semi-Positivity 84
5.3.1 Definitions 84
5.3.2 Semi-Positive Z-Tensol's 85
5.3.3 Proof of Theorem 5.7 87
5.3.4 General M-Tensors 89
5.4 l\lonotonicity 90
5.4.1 Defiuitions 90
5.4.2 Properties 90
5.4.3 A Count.er Example 93
5.4.4 A Nontrivial l\lollotone Z-Tensor 93
5.5 An Extension of M-Tensors 93
5.6 SummRtion 95
6 Multilinear Systems with M-Tensors 97

6.1 i\lotivat.ions 97
6.2 Triangular Equations. 99
6.3 M-Equatiolls and Beyond 102
6.3.1 M-Equations 102
6.3.2 Nonpositive R.ight-Hand Side 104
6.3.3 Nonhomog eneous Left-Hanel Side 105
6.3.4 Absolute M-Equations 106
6.3.5 Banded M-Equation . 107
6.4 Iterative i\lethods for M-Equations . 108
6.4.1 The Classical Iterations 109
CONTENTS ix
6.4.2 The Newton Method for Symmetric M-Equat. iolls 111

6.'1.3 Numerical Tests 112
6.5 Perturbation Analysis of M-Eql.lations ]]4
6.5,] Backwarrl. Errors of Triangular M-Equations 115
6.5.2 Condition Numbers 116
6.6 Inverse Iteration 118
Bibliography 125
Subject Index 135

Preface
This book is devoted to the theory and computation of tensors, also called hyper-
matrices. Our investigation includes theories on generalized tensor eigenvalue
problems and two kinds of structured tensors, Hankel tensors and M-tensors.
Both theoretical analyses and computational aspects are discussed.
We begin with the generalized tensor eigenvalue problems, which are re-
garded as a unified framework of different kinds of tensor eigenvalue problems
arising from applications. We focus on the perturbation theory and the error
analysis of regular tensor pairs. Employing various techniques, we extend sev-
eral classical results from matrices or matrix pairs to tensor pairs, such as the
Gershgorin circle theorem, the Collatz-Wielandt formula, the Bauer-Fike the-
orem, the Rayleigh-Ritz theorem, backward error analysis, the componentwise
distance of a nonsingular tensor to singularity, etc.
In the second part, we focus on Hankel tensors. We first propose a fast algo-
rithm for Hankel tensor-vector products by introducing a special class of Hankel
tensors that can be diagonalized by Fourier matrices, called anti-circulant ten-
sors. Then we obtain a fast algorithm for Hankel tensor-vector products by em-
bedding a Hankel tensor into a larger anti-circulant tensor. The computational
complexity is reduced from O(nm ) to O(m2 n log mn). Next, we investigate the
spectral inheritance properties of Hankel tensors by applying the convolution
formula of the fast algorithm and an augmented Vandermonde decomposition of
strong Hankel tensors. We prove that if a lower-order Hankel tensor is positive
semidefinite, then a higher-order Hankel tensor with the same generating vector
has no negative H-eigenvalues, when (i) the lower order is 2, or (ii) the lower
order is even and the higher order is its multiple.
The third part is contributed to M-tensors. We attempt to extend the
equivalent definitions of nonsingular M -matrices, such as semi-positivity, mono-
tonicity, nonnegative inverse, etc., to the tensor case. Our results show that
the semi-positivity is still an equivalent definition of nonsingular M-tensors,
while the monotonicity is not. Furthermore, the generalization of the “nonneg-
ative inverse” property inspires the study of multilinear system of equations.
We prove the existence and uniqueness of the positive solutions of nonsingular
M-equations with positive right-hand sides, and also propose several iterative
methods for computing the positive solutions.
We would like to thank our collaborator Prof. Liqun Qi of the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, who leaded us to the research of tensor spectral theory
and always encourages us to explore the topic. We would also like to thank
Prof. Eric King-wah Chu of Monash University and Prof. Sanzheng Qiao of
McMaster University, who read this book carefully and provided feedback during
the writing process.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant 11271084, School of Mathematical Sciences and Key Labo-
ratory of Mathematics for Nonlinear Sciences, Fudan University.
Chapter 1
Introduction and
Preliminaries
We first introduce the concepts and sources of tensors in this chapter. Several
essential and frequently used operations involving tensors are also included. Fur-
thermore, two basic topics, tensor decompositions and tensor eigenvalue prob-
lems, are briefly discussed at the end of this chapter.
1.1 What Are Tensors?

The term tensor or hypermatrix in this book refers to a multiway array. The
number of the dimensions of a tensor is called its order, that is, A = (ai1 i2 ...im )
is an mth -order tensor. Particularly, a scalar is a 0th -order tensor, a vector is
a 1st -order tensor, and a matrix is a 2nd -order tensor. As other mathematical
concepts, tensor or hypermatrix is abstracted from real-world phenomena and
other scientific theories. Where do the tensors arise? What kinds of properties
do we care most? How many different types of tensors do we have? We will
briefly answer these questions employing several illustrative examples in this
section.
Example 1.1. As we know, a table is one of the most common realizations of

a matrix. We can also understand tensors or hypermatrices as complex tables
with multivariables. For instance, if we record the scores of 4 students on 3
subjects for both the midterm and final exams, then we can design a 3rd -order
tensor S of size 4 × 3 × 2 whose (i, j, k) entry sijk denotes the score of the i-th
student on the j-th subjects in the k-th exam. This representation is natural
and easily understood, thus it is a convenient data structure for construction
and query. However, when we need to print the information on a piece of paper,
the 3D structure is apparently not suitable for 2D visualization. Thus we need
to unfold the cubic tensor into a matrix. The following two different unfoldings
of the same tensor both include all the information in the original complex
table. We can see from the two tables that their entries are the same up to a
permutation. Actually, there are many different ways to unfold a higher-order
tensor into a matrix, and the linkages between them are permutations of indices.
Theory and Computation of Tensors. 3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803953-3.50001-0
4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARIES
Sub. 1 Sub. 2 Sub. 3

Mid Final Mid Final Mid Final
Std. 1 s111 s112 s121 s122 s131 s132
Std. 2 s211 s212 s221 s222 s231 s232
Std. 3 s311 s312 s321 s322 s331 s332
Std. 4 s411 s412 s421 s422 s431 s432
Table 1.1: The first way to print S.
Mid Final
Sub. 1 Sub. 2 Sub. 3 Sub. 1 Sub. 2 Sub. 3
Std. 1 s111 s121 s131 s112 s122 s132
Std. 2 s211 s221 s231 s212 s222 s232
Std. 3 s311 s321 s331 s312 s322 s332
Std. 4 s411 s421 s431 s412 s422 s432
Table 1.2: The second way to print S.
Example 1.2. Another important realization of tensors are the storage of color
images and videos. A black-and-white image can be stored as a greyscale matrix,
whose entries are the greyscale values of the corresponding pixels. Color images
are often built from several stacked color channels, each of which represents
value levels of the given channel. For example, RGB images are composed of
three independent channels for red, green, and blue primary color components.
We can apply a 3rd -order tensor P to store an RGB image, whose (i, j, k) entry
denotes the value of the k-th channel in the (i, j) position. (k = 1, 2, 3 represent
the red, green, and blue channel, respectively.) In order to store a color video,
we may need an extra index for the time axis. That is, we employ a 4th -order
tensor M = (mijkt ), where M(:, :, :, t) stores the t-th frame of the video as a
color image.
Example 1.3. Denote x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )> ∈ Rn . As we know, a degree-1
polynomial p1 (x) = c1 x1 + c2 x2 + · · · + cn xn can be rewritten into p1 (x) = x> c,
where the vector c = (c1 , c2 , . . . , cn )> . Similarly, a degree-2 polynomial p2 (x) =
P n >
i,j=1 cij xi xj , that is, a quadratic form, can be simplified into p2 (x) = x Cx,
th
where the matrix C = (cij ). By analogy, if we denote an m -order tensor
C = (ci1 i2 ...im ) and apply a notation, which will be introduced in the next
section, then the degree-m homogeneous polynomial
n X
X n n
X
pm (x) = ··· ci1 i2 ...im xi1 xi2 . . . xim
i1 =1 i2 =1 im =1
can be rewritten as
pm (x) = Cxm .
Moreover, x> c = 0 is often used to denote a hyperplane in Rn . Similarly,
Cxm = 0 can stand for an degree-m hypersurface in Rn . We shall see in Section
1.2 that the normal vector at a point x0 on this hypersurface is nx0 = Cxm−1
0 .
1.1. WHAT ARE TENSORS? 5
Example 1.4. The Taylor expansion is a well-known mathematical tool. The

Taylor series of a real or complex-valued function f (x) that is infinitely differ-
entiable at a real or complex number a is the power series
∞
X 1 (m)
f (x) = f (a)(x − a)m .
m=0
m!
A multivariate function f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) that is infinitely differentiable at a

point (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) also has its Taylor expansion
∞ ∞
X X (x1 − a1 )i1 . . . (xn − an )in ∂ i1 +···+in f (a1 , . . . , an )
f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = ··· ,
i1 =0 i =0
n
i1 ! · · · in ! ∂xi11 . . . ∂xinn
which is equivalent to
n
X ∂f (a1 , . . . , an )
f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = f (a1 , . . . , an ) + (xi − ai )
i=1
∂xi
n n
1 X X ∂ 2 f (a1 , . . . , an )
+ (xi − ai )(xj − aj )
2! i=1 j=1 ∂xi ∂xj
n n n
1 X X X ∂ 3 f (a1 , . . . , an )
+ (xi − ai )(xj − aj )(xk − ak ) + · · · .
3! i=1 j=1 ∂xi ∂xj ∂xk
k=1
Denoting x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )> and a = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an )> , then we can rewrite

the second and the third terms in the above equation as
(x − a)> ∇f (a) and (x − a)> ∇2 f (a)(x − a),
where ∇f (a) and ∇2 f (a) are the gradient and the Hessian of f (x) at a, re-
spectively. If we define the mth -order gradient tensor ∇m f (a) of f (x) at a
as
∂ m f (a1 , a2 , . . . , an )
∇m f (a) i1 i2 ...im =

,
∂xi1 ∂xi2 . . . ∂xim
then the Taylor expansion of a multivariate function can also be expressed by
∞
X 1 m
f (x) = ∇ f (a)(x − a)m .
m=0
m!
Example 1.5. The discrete-time Markov chain is one of the most important
models of random processes [10, 28, 81, 114], which assumes that the future is
dependent solely on the finite past. This model is so simple and natural that
Markov chains are widely employed in many disciplines, such as thermodynam-
ics, statistical mechanics, queueing theory, web analysis, economics, and finance.
An sth -order Markov chain is a stochastic process with the Markov property,
that is, a sequence of variables {Yt }∞
t=1 satisfying
Pr(Yt = i1 | Yt−1 = i2 , . . . , Y1 = it ) = Pr(Yt = i1 | Yt−1 = i2 , . . . , Yt−s = is+1 ),

for all t > s. That is, any state depends solely on the immediate past s states.
Particularly, when the step length s = 1, the sequence {Yt }∞
t=1 is a standard first-
order Markov chain. Define the transition probability matrix P of an second-
order Markov chain as
pij = Pr(Yt = i | Yt−1 = j),
which is a stochastic matrix, that is, pij ≥ 0 for all i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n and

Pn
i=1 pij = 1 for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n. The probability distribution of Yt is denoted
e
by a vector
(xt )i = Pr(Yt = i).
Then the Markov chain is modeled by xt+1 = P xt , thus the stationary probabil-
ity distribution x satisfies x = P x and is exactly an eigenvector of the transition
probability matrix corresponding to the eigenvalue 1.
For higher-order Markov chains, we have similar formulations. Take a second-
order Markov chain, that is, s = 2, as an example. Define the transition proba-
bility tensor P of a second-order Markov chain as
pijk = Pr(Yt = i | Yt−1 = j, Yt−2 = k),

Pn
which is a stochastic tensor, that is, P ≥ 0 and i=1 pijk = 1 for all j, k =
1, 2, . . . , n. The probability distribution of Yet in the product space can be re-
shaped into a matrix
(Xt )i,j = Pr(Yt = i, Yt−1 = j).
Then the stationary probability distribution in the product space X satisfies

n
X
X(i, j) = P (i, j, k) · X(j, k)
k=1
for all i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n. If we further assume that
Pr(Yt = i, Yt−1 = j) = Pr(Yt = i) · Pr(Yt−1 = j)
for all i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n and denote (xt )i = Pr(Yt = i), that is, Xt = xt x>
t , then
the stationary probability distribution x satisfies x = Px2 [74]. We shall see in
Section 1.2 that x is a special eigenvector of the tensor P.
From the above examples, we can gain some basic ideas about what tensors
are and where they come from. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of
tensors: the first kind is a data structure, which admits different dimensions
according to the complexity of the data; the second kind is an operator, where
it possesses different meanings in different situations.
1.2 Basic Operations

We first introduce several basic tensor operations that will be frequently referred
to in the book. One of the difficulties of tensor research is the complicated
indices. Therefore we often use some small-size examples rather than exact
definitions in this section to describe those essential concepts more clearly. For
more detailed definitions, we refer to Chapter 12 in [49] and the references
[18, 66, 98].
• To treat or visualize the multidimensional structures, we often reshape a

higher-order tensor into a vector or a matrix, which are more familiar to
1.2. BASIC OPERATIONS 7
us. The vectorization operator vec(·) turns tensors into column vectors.
Take a 2 × 2 × 2 tensor A = (aijk )2i,j,k=1 for example, then
vec(A) = (a111 , a211 , a121 , a221 , a112 , a212 , a122 , a222 )> .
There are a lot of different ways to reshape tensors into matrices, which
are often referred to as “unfoldings.” The most frequently applied one
is call the modal unfolding. The mode-k unfolding A(k) of an mth -order
tensor A of size n1 × n2 × · · · × nm is an nk -by-(N/nk ) matrix, where
N = n1 n2 . . . nm . Again, use the above 2 × 2 × 2 example. Its mode-1,
mode-2, and mode-3 unfoldings are

a111 a121 a112 a122
A(1) = ,
a211 a221 a212 a222

a111 a211 a112 a212
A(2) = ,
a121 a221 a122 a222

a111 a211 a121 a221
A(3) = ,
a112 a212 a122 a222
respectively. Sometimes the mode-k unfolding is also denoted as Unfoldk (·).
• The transposition operation of a matrix is understood as the exchange
of the two indices. But higher-order tensors have more indices, thus we
have much more transpositions of tensors. If A is a 3rd -order tensor,
then there are six possible
transpositions denoted as A<[σ(1),σ(2),σ(3)]> ,
where σ(1), σ(2), σ(3) is any of the six permutations of (1, 2, 3). When
B = A<[σ(1),σ(2),σ(3)]> , it means
biσ(1) iσ(2) iσ(3) = ai1 i2 i3 .
If all the entries of a tensor are invariant under any permutations of the
indices, then we call it a symmetric tensor. For example, a 3rd -order tensor
is said to be symmetric if and only if
A<[1,2,3]> = A<[1,3,2]> = A<[2,1,3]> = A<[2,3,1]> = A<[3,1,2]> = A<[3,2,1]> .
• Modal tensor-matrix multiplications are essential in this book, which are

generalizations of matrix-matrix multiplications. Let A be an mth -order
tensor of size n1 × n2 × · · · × nm and M be a matrix of size nk × n0k , then
the mode-k product A ×k M of the tensor A and the matrix M is another
mth -order tensor of size n1 × · · · × n0k × · · · × nm with
nk
X
(A ×k M )i1 ...ik−1 jk ik+1 ...im = ai1 ...ik−1 ik ik+1 ...im · mik jk .
ik =1
Particularly, if A, M1 and M2 are all matrices, then A ×1 M1 ×2 M2 =

M1> AM2 . Easily verified, the tensor-matrix multiplications satisfy that
1. A ×k Mk ×l Ml = A ×l Ml ×k Mk , if k 6= l,
2. A ×k M1 ×k M2 = A ×k (M1 M2 ),
3. A ×k (α1 M1 + α2 M2 ) = α1 A ×k M1 + α1 A ×k M1 ,
4. Unfoldk (A ×k M ) = M > A(k) ,
5. vec(A ×1 M1 ×2 M2 · · · ×m Mm ) = (Mm ⊗ · · · ⊗ M2 ⊗ M1 )> vec(A),
where A is a tensor, Mk are matrices, and α1 , α2 are scalars.
• If the matrices degrade into column vectors, then we obtain another cluster
of important notations for tensor spectral theory. Let A be an mth -order
n-dimensional tensor, that is, of size n × n × · · · × n, and x be a vector of
length n, then for simplicity:
Axm = A ×1 x ×2 x ×3 x · · · ×m x is a scalar,
Axm−1 = A ×2 x ×3 x · · · ×m x is a vector,
m−2
Ax =A ×3 x · · · ×m x is a matrix.
• Like the vector case, an inner product of two tensors A and B of the same
size are defined by
n1
X nm
X
hA, Bi = ··· ai1 i2 ...im · bi1 i2 ...im ,
i1 =1 im =1
which is exactly the usual inner product of the two vectors vec(A) and
vec(B).
• The outer product of two tensors is a higher-order tensor. Let A and
B be mth -order and (m0 )th -order tensors, respectively. Then their outer
product A ◦ B is an (m + m0 )th -order tensor with
(A ◦ B)i1 ...im j1 ...jm0 = ai1 i2 ...im · bj1 j2 ...jm0 .
If a and b are vectors, then a ◦ b = ab> .
• We sometimes refer to the Hadamard product of two tensors with the
same size as
⊗ B)i1 i2 ...im = ai1 i2 ...im · bi1 i2 ...im .
(AHAD
The Hadamard product will also be denoted as A. ∗ B in the descriptions
of some algorithms, which is a MATLAB-type notation.
1.3 Tensor Decompositions

Given a tensor, how can we retrieve the information hidden inside? One reason-
able answer is the tensor decomposition approach. Existing tensor decomposi-
tions include the Tucker-type decompositions, the CANDECOMP/PARAFAC
(CP) decomposition, tensor train representation, etc. For those readers inter-
ested in tensor decompositions, we recommend the survey papers [50, 66]. Some
tensor decompositions are generalizations of the singular value decomposition
(SVD) [49].
The SVD is one of the most important tools for matrix analysis and compu-
tation. Any matrix A ∈ Rm×n with rank r has the decomposition
A = U ΣV > ,
1.3. TENSOR DECOMPOSITIONS 9
where U ∈ Rm×r and V ∈ Rn×r are column orthogonal matrices, that is,
U > U = Im and V > V = In , and Σ = diag(σ1 , σ2 , . . . , σr ) is a positive diagonal
matrix. Then σk are called the singular values of A. If U = [u1 , u2 , . . . , ur ] and
V = [v1 , v2 , . . . , vr ], then the SVD can be rewritten asinto
r
X
A= σi ui vi> ,
i=1
which represents the matrix A as a sum of several rank-one matrices. For an

arbitrary nonsingular matrix M ∈ Rr×r , denote L = U ΣM > ∈ Rm×r and
R = V M −1 ∈ Rn×r . Then
A = LR>
is a low-rank decomposition if r is much smaller than m and n. These three
equivalent formulas of the SVD are all extended to the higher-order tensors.
Let A be an mth -order tensor of size n1 × n2 × · · · × nm . The Tucker-type
decompositions of the tensor A has the form
A = S ×1 U1> ×2 U2> · · · ×m Um
>
,
where S is an mth -order tensor of size r × r × · · · × r, called the core tensor,
and Uk ∈ Rn×r for k = 1, 2, . . . , m. Note that the first formula A = U ΣV >
of the SVD can be rewritten into this form A = Σ ×1 U > ×2 V > . If there
are no restrictions on S and Uk , then we have an infinite number of Tucker-
type decompositions, most of which are no more informative. The higher-order
singular value decomposition (HOSVD), proposed in [33, 35], is a special Tucker-
type decomposition, which satisfies that
• the core S is all-orthogonal (hSik =α , Sik =β i = 0 for all k = 1, 2, . . . , m,
α 6= β) and ordered (kSik =1 kF ≥ kSik =2 kF ≥ · · · ≥ kSik =nk kF for all
k = 1, 2, . . . , m); and
• the matrices Uk are column orthogonal.
Actually, the matrix Uk consists of the left singular vectors of the mode-k un-
folding A(k) , and kSik =1 kF , kSik =2 kF , . . . , kSik =nk kF are exactly the singular
values of A(k) . One can easily verify that if a matrix is all-orthogonal then it
must be a diagonal matrix. Thus the 2nd -order version of the HOSVD is exactly
the SVD.
Nevertheless, the core tensor S of the HOSVD is never sparse in the higher-
order cases, thus complicated and obscure. If we restrict the core tensor to be
diagonal, that is, the entries except for sii...i (i = 1, 2, . . . , r) are all zero, then
we may relax the restriction on the number of terms r. Denote the diagonal
entries of S as σ1 , σ2 , . . . , σr , and Uk = [uk1 , uk2 , . . . , ukr ] for all k = 1, 2, . . . , m.
The CP decomposition of the tensor A is referred to as
r
X
A= σi u1i ◦ u2i ◦ · · · ◦ umi ,
i=1
where r might be larger than n. Each term u1i ◦ u2i ◦ · · · ◦ umi in the CP
decomposition is called a rank-one tensor. The least number of the terms, that
is,
n Xr o
R = min r : A = σi u1i ◦ u2i ◦ · · · ◦ umi ,
i=1
is called the CP-rank of the tensor A. The computation or estimation of the

CP-ranks of higher-order tensors is NP-hard [54], and still a hard task in tensor
research.
The tensor train format (TT) [92, 91] for higher-order tensors extends the
low-rank decomposition of matrices. Let A be an mth -order tensor. Then it can
be expressed in the following format
r1 rm−1
X X
ai1 i2 ...im = ··· (G1 )i1 k1 (G2 )k1 i2 k2 · · · (Gm−1 )km−2 im−1 km−1 (Gm )km−1 im
k1 =1 km−1 =1
for all i1 , i2 , . . . , im , where G1 and Gm are matrices and G2 , . . . , Gm−1 are 3rd -
order tensors. If r1 , r2 , . . . , rm−1 are much smaller than the tensor size, then
the TT representation will greatly reduce the storage cost for the tensor.
1.4 Tensor Eigenvalue Problems

We have introduced the tensor-vector products in the previous sections. Given
an mth -order n-dimensional square tensor A, notice that x 7→ Axm−1 is a non-
linear operator from Cn to itself. Thus we should consider some characteristic
values of this operator. For this sake, we can define several tensor eigenvalue
problems.
First, we introduce a homogeneous tensor eigenvalue problem. If a scalar
λ ∈ C and a nonzero vector x ∈ Cn satisfy
Axm−1 = λx[m−1] ,
where x[m−1] = [xm−1
1 , xm−1
2 , . . . , xm−1
n ]> , then λ is called an eigenvalue of A
and x is called a corresponding eigenvector. Furthermore, when the tensor A,
the scalar λ and the vector x are all real, we call λ an H-eigenvalue of A and x a
corresponding H-eigenvector. For a real symmetric tensor A, its H-eigenvectors
are exactly the KKT points of the polynomial optimization problem
max/min Axm ,
s.t. xm m m
1 + x2 + · · · + xn = 1.
This was the original motivation when Qi [98] and Lim [76] first introduced this
kind of eigenvalue problem.
We also have other nonhomogeneous tensor eigenvalue definitions. For ex-
ample, if a scalar λ ∈ C and a nonzero vector x ∈ Cn satisfy
Axm−1 = λx with x> x = 1,
then λ is called an E-eigenvalue of A and x is called a corresponding E-
eigenvector [99]. Furthermore, when the tensor A, the scalar λ, and the vector x
are all real, we call λ an Z-eigenvalue of A and x a corresponding Z-eigenvector.
For a real symmetric tensor A, its Z-eigenvectors are exactly the KKT points
of the polynomial optimization problem
max/min Axm ,
s.t. x21 + x22 + · · · + x2n = 1.
We will introduce more definitions of tensor eigenvalues in Chapter 2, which
can be unified into a generalized tensor eigenvalue problem Axm−1 = λBxm−1 .
Further discussions will be conducted on this unified framework.
Chapter 2
Generalized Tensor
Eigenvalue Problems
Generalized matrix eigenvalue problems are essential in scientific and engineer-

ing computations. The generalized eigenvalue formula Ax = λBx is also a
very pervasive model, which covers the matrix polynomial eigenvalue problems.
There has been extensive study of both the theories and the computations of
generalized matrix eigenvalue problems, and one can refer to [6, 49, 113] for
more details. Applying the notations introduced in Chapter 1, the generalized
tensor eigenvalue problem is referred to finding λ and x satisfying
Axm−1 = λBxm−1 .
The detailed definition will be introduced later.
2.1 A Unified Framework

Since Qi [98] and Lim [76] proposed the definition of tensor eigenvalues inde-
pendently in 2005, a great deal of mathematical effort has been devoted to
the study of the eigenproblems of single tensors, especially for the nonnegative
tensors [18, 19]. Nevertheless, there has been much less specific research on the
generalized eigenproblems, since Chang et al. [19, 20] introduced the generalized
tensor eigenvalues. Recently, Kolda and Mayo [68], Cui et al. [30], and Chen
et al. [25] proposed numerical algorithms for generalized tensor eigenproblems.
Kolda and Mayo [68] applied an adaptive shifted power method by solving the
optimization problem
Axm
max kxkm .
kxk=1 Bxm
In Cui, Dai, and Nie’s paper [30], they impose the constraint λk+1 < λk − δ
when the k-th eigenvalue is obtained, so that the (k + 1)-th eigenvalue can also
be computed by the same method as the previous ones. Chen, Han, and Zhou
[25] proposed homotopy methods for generalized tensor eigenvalue problems.
It was pointed out in [19, 20, 30, 68] that the generalized eigenvalue frame-
work unifies several definitions of tensor eigenvalues, such as the eigenvalues and
Theory and Computation of Tensors. 11

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803953-3.50002-2
12 CHAPTER 2. GENERALIZED TENSOR EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS
the H-eigenvalues [98], that is,
Axm−1 = λx[m−1] , where x[m−1] = [xm−1

1 , xm−1
2 , . . . , xm−1
n ]> ,
the E-eigenvalues and the Z-eigenvalues [99], that is,
Axm−1 = λx with x> x = 1,
and the D-eigenvalues [103], that is,
Axm−1 = λDx with x> Dx = 1,
where D is a positive definite matrix. We shall present several other potential

applications of generalized tensor eigenvalue problems.
The first example is the higher-order Markov chain [28]. Li and Ng [74]
reformulated an (m − 1)st -order Markov chain problem into searching for a
nonnegative vector x em−1 = x
e satisfying P x e with x e2 + · · · + x
e1 + x en = 1, where
P is the transition probability tensor of the Markov chain. Let E be a tensor
such that
(Exm−1 )i = xi (x1 + x2 + · · · + xn )m−2 (i = 1, 2, . . . , n)
for an arbitrary vector x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )> . Thus a nonnegative vector xe that

satisfies the homogenous equality P x em−1 = E x em−1 is exactly what is required.
The US-eigenvalue [85] from quantum information processing is another
special case of the generalized tensor eigenvalue. Let S be an mth -order n-
dimensional symmetric tensor. Then the US-eigenvalues are defined by
S̄xm−1 = λx̄,

with kxk2 = 1.
S x̄m−1 = λx,
Denote Se as an mth -order (2n)-dimensional tensor with
S(1
e : n, . . . , 1 : n) = S̄ and S(n
e + 1 : 2n, . . . , n + 1 : 2n) = S,
e = (x> , x̄> )> . When m is even, let J be a tensor such that

and x
yi+n (y1 yn+1 + y2 yn+2 + · · · + yn y2n )m/2−1 , i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

m−1
(J y )i =
yi−n (y1 yn+1 + y2 yn+2 + · · · + yn y2n )m/2−1 , i = n + 1, . . . , 2n,
for an arbitrary vector y ∈ C2n . Noticing that x e1 x

en+1 +e en+2 +· · ·+e
x2 x xn x
e2n = 1,
we rewrite the definition of the US-eigenvalue into Sex em−1 = λJ x em−1 .
Another potential application is from multilabel learning, where the hyper-
graphs are naturally involved [116]. The Laplacian tensor of a hypergraph is
widely studied in [29, 58, 73]. Denote L as the Laplacian tensor of the hyper-
graph induced by the classification structures. Then Lxm presents the clustering
score of the data points {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } when m is even. Borrowing the idea of
graph embedding [127], we can derive a framework of multilabel learning
max Lxm ,
s.t. Lp xm = 1,
2.2. BASIC DEFINITIONS 13
where Lp is the Laplacian tensor of a penalty hypergraph, which removes some

trivial relations. Employing the method of Lagrange multipliers, we can trans-
form the optimization problem into a generalized tensor eigenvalue problem
Lxm−1 = λLp xm−1 .
Moreover, consider a homogenous polynomial dynamical system [43],
dBu(t)m−1
= Au(t)m−1 .
dt
We explored the stability of the above system in [43]. Similarly to the linear
case, if we require a solution which has the form u(t) = x·eλt , then a generalized
tensor eigenvalue problem Axm−1 = (m − 1)λBxm−1 is naturally raised from
this homogenous system.
The generalized tensor eigenvalue problem is an interesting topic, although
its computational solutions are not well-developed so far. Therefore we aim at
investigating the generalized tensor eigenvalue problems theoretically, especially
on some perturbation properties as a prerequisite of the numerical computations
in [68].
2.2 Basic Definitions

We will first introduce some concepts and notations involved. Let K1,2 denote
a projective plane [113], in which (α1 , β1 ), (α2 , β2 ) ∈ K × K are regarded as the
same point, if there is a nonzero scalar γ ∈ K such that (α1 , β1 ) = (γα2 , γβ2 ).
We can take K as the complex number field C, the real number field R, or the
nonnegative number cone R+ .
The determinant of a tensor is investigated by Qi et al. [98, 57]. The
determinant of an mth -order n-dimensional tensor A is the resultant [31] of
the system of homogeneous equations Axm−1 = 0, which is also the unique
polynomial on the entries of A satisfying that
• det(A) = 0 if and only if Axm−1 = 0 has a nonzero solution;
• det(I) = 1, where I is the unit tensor;
• det(A) is an irreducible polynomial on the entries of A.
Furthermore, det(A) is homogeneous of degree n(m − 1)n−1 . As a simple ex-
ample in [98], the determinant of a 2 × 2 × 2 tensor is defined by
 
a111 a112 + a121 a122 0
 0 a111 a112 + a121 a122 
det(A) = det 
a211 a212 + a221
.
a222 0 
0 a211 a212 + a221 a222
Now we can define the generalized eigenvalue problems of tensor pairs which
is similar to the matrix case [6, 49, 113]. Let A and B be two mth -order tensors
in Cn×n×···×n . We call {A, B} a regular tensor pair, if
det(βA − αB) 6= 0 for some (α, β) ∈ C1,2 .
Reversely, we call {A, B} a singular tensor pair, if
det(βA − αB) = 0 for all (α, β) ∈ C1,2 .
In this chapter, we focus on the regular tensor pairs.

If {A, B} is a regular tensor pair and there exists (α, β) ∈ C1,2 with a nonzero
vector x ∈ Cn such that
(2.1) βAxm−1 = αBxm−1 ,
then we call (α, β) an eigenvalue of the regular tensor pair {A, B} and x the
corresponding eigenvector. When B is nonsingular, that is, det(B) 6= 0, no
nonzero vector x ∈ Cn satisfies that Bxm−1 = 0, according to [57, Theorem
3.1]. Thus β 6= 0 if (α, β) is an eigenvalue of {A, B}. We also call λ = α/β ∈ C
an eigenvalue of the tensor pair {A, B} when det(B) 6= 0. Denote the spectrum,
that is, the set of all the eigenvalues, of {A, B} as

λ(A, B) = (α, β) ∈ C1,2 : det(βA − αB) = 0 ,
or, for a nonsingular B, we also denote

λ(A, B) = λ ∈ C : det(A − λB) = 0 .
This chapter is devoted to the properties and perturbations of the spectrum

λ(A, B) for a regular tensor pair {A, B}.
2.3 Several Basic Properties

There are plenty of theoretical results about the regular matrix pairs [6, 49, 113].
In this section, we extend several of them to the regular tensor pairs. Note that
some of the generalized results maintain the forms similar to the matrix case,
while others do not.
2.3.1 Number of Eigenvalues

How many eigenvalues does a regular tensor pair have? This might be the first
question about the spectrum of a regular tensor pair. We have the following
result:
Theorem 2.1. The number of the eigenvalues of an mth -order n-dimensional
regular tensor pair is n(m − 1)n−1 counting multiplicity.
Proof. If {A, B} is an mth -order n-dimensional regular tensor pair, then there
exists such (γ, δ) ∈ C1,2 that det(δA−γB) 6= 0. Assume that (γ, δ) is normalized
to |γ|2 + |δ|2 = 1. We have the transformation, as the matrix case [115, Page
300], ( (
Ae = γ̄A + δ̄B, A = γ Ae + δ̄ B,
e
⇔
Be = δA − γB, B = δ Ae − γ̄ B.
e
Thus there is a one-to-one map between λ(A, B) and λ(A,

e B):
e

αe = αγ̄ + β δ̄, α=α eγ + βeδ̄,
⇔
βe = αδ − βγ, β=α eδ − βγ̄.
e
Since det(B)
e 6= 0, then the eigenvalues of {A,
e B}
e are exactly the complex roots
of the polynomial equation det(A − λB) = 0. By [57, Proposition 2.4], the
e e
2.3. SEVERAL BASIC PROPERTIES 15
degree of the polynomial det(Ae − λB) e of λ is no more than n(m − 1)n−1 . We

shall show that the degree is exactly n(m − 1)n−1 .
n−1
Denote the coefficient of the item λn(m−1) in det(Ae − λB)
e as f (A,
e B).
e
From the definition of det(A − λB), we see that f (A, B) is actually independent
e e e e
of the entries of A.
e Thus f (A,e B)
e = f (O, B),
e where O denotes the zero tensor.
It is easy to verify that f (O, B) = det(B) 6= 0. Thus f (I, B)
e e e is nonzero, and so
is f (A, B). Therefore the polynomial det(A − λB) = 0 has n(m − 1)n−1 roots
e e e e
counting multiplicity.
2.3.2 Spectral Radius

Spectral radius is an important quantity for the eigenvalue problems. To define
the spectral radius of a regular tensor pair, we introduce a representation of the
points in R1,2 first. Let (s, c) be a point in R1,2 . Without loss of generality, we
can assume that c ≥ 0 and s > 0 when c = 0. Define an angle in (−π/2, π/2] as
s
θ(s, c) := arcsin √ .
s2 + c2
When c is fixed, θ(·, c) is an increasing function; When s is fixed, θ(s, ·) is a
decreasing function.
For a regular tensor pair {A, B}, we define the θ-spectral radius as
ρθ (A, B) := max θ(|α|, |β|).

(α,β)∈λ(A,B)
Define another nonnegative function about {A, B} as
θ kAxm−1 k, kBxm−1 k .

ψθ (A, B) := max
x∈Cn \{0}

It is apparent that ρθ (A, B) ≤ ψθ (A, B), since θ kAxm−1 k, kBxm−1 k = θ(|α|, |β|),
if (α, β) ∈ λ(A, B) and x is the corresponding eigenvector.
When det(B) 6= 0, we can define the spectral radius in a simpler way
ρ(A, B) := max |λ|.

λ∈λ(A,B)
Similarly, we define a nonnegative function about {A, B} as
kAxm−1 k
ψ(A, B) := max .
x∈Cn \{0} kBxm−1 k
It is easy to verify that tan ρθ (A, B) = ρ(A, B) ≤ ψ(A, B) = tan ψθ (A, B).
Furthermore, if B is fixed, then the nonnegative function ψ(·, B) is a seminorm
on Cn×n×···×n . When A, B are matrices and B = I, the result becomes the
familiar one that the spectral radius of a matrix is always no larger than its
norm.
2.3.3 Diagonalizable Tensor Pairs

Diagonalizable matrix pairs play an important role in the perturbation theory
of the generalized eigenvalues [113, Section 6.2.3]. A tensor A is said to be
diagonal if all its entries except the diagonal ones aii...i (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) are
zeros. We call {A, B} a diagonalizable tensor pair if there are two nonsingular
matrices P and Q such that
C = P −1 AQm−1 and D = P −1 BQm−1
are two diagonal tensors. Let the diagonal entries of C and D be {c1 , c2 , . . . , cn }
and {d1 , d2 , . . . , dn }, respectively. If (ci , di ) 6= (0, 0) for all i = 1, 2, . . . , n,
then {A, B} is a regular tensor pair. Furthermore, (ci , di ) are exactly all the
eigenvalues of {A, B}, and their multiplicities are (m − 1)n−1 .
It should be pointed out that the concept of “diagonalizable tensor pair”
is not so general as the concept of “diagonalizable matrix pair” [113, Section
6.2.3]. For instance, if matrices A and B are both symmetric, then the matrix
pair {A, B} must be diagonalizable. However, this is not true for symmetric
tensor pairs. Hence we shall present a nontrivial diagonalizable tensor pair to
illustrate that it is a reasonable definition.
Example 2.1. Let A and B be two mth -order n-dimensional anti-circulant
tensors [39]. According to the result in that paper, we know that
C = Fn∗ A(Fn∗ )m−1 and D = Fn∗ B(Fn∗ )m−1
are both diagonal, where Fn is the n-by-n Fourier matrix [49, Section 1.4].
Therefore an anti-circulant tensor pair must be diagonalizable.
2.3.4 Gershgorin Circle Theorem

The Gershgorin circle theorem [121] is useful to bound the eigenvalues of a
matrix. Stewart and Sun proposed a generalized Gershgorin theorem for a
regular matrix pair (see Corollary 2.5 in [113, Section 6.2.2]). We extend this
famous theorem to the tensor case in this subsection. Define the p-norm of a
tensor as the p-norm of its mode-1 unfolding [49, Chapter 12.4]
kAkp := kA(1) kp .
Particularly, the tensor ∞-norm has the form

n X
X n n
X
kAk∞ = max ··· |aii2 ...im |.
i=1,2,...,n
i2 =1 i3 =1 im =1
Notice that for a positive integer k, we have kx[k] k∞ = kx⊗k k∞ , where x[k] =
[xk1 , xk2 , . . . , xkn ]> is the componentwise power and x⊗k = x ⊗ x ⊗ · · · ⊗ x is the
Kronecker product of k copies of x [49, Section 12.3]. Denote M A := A ×1 M >
and AM m−1 = A×2 M · · ·×m M for simplicity. Then we can prove the following
lemma for ∞-norm:
Lemma 2.2. Let {A, B} and {C, D} = {CI, DI} be two mth -order n-dimensional
regular tensor pairs, where C and D are two matrices. If (α, β) ∈ C1,2 is an
eigenvalue of {A, B}, then either det(βC − αD) = 0 or
(βC − αD)−1 β(C − A) − α(D − B)

≥ 1.
∞
Proof. If (α, β) ∈ C1,2 satisfies that det(βC − αD) 6= 0, then it holds for an
arbitrary nonzero vector y ∈ Cn that (βC − αD)ym−1 6= 0, which is equivalent
to (βC − αD)y[m−1] 6= 0. Then the matrix βC − αD is nonsingular.
Since (α, β) is an eigenvalue of {A, B}, there exists a nonzero vector x ∈ Cn
such that βAxm−1 = αBxm−1 . This indicates that
β(C − A) − α(D − B) xm−1 = (βC − αD)xm−1 .

Thus from the expressions of C and D, we have
Gxm−1 := (βC − αD)−1 β(C − A) − α(D − B) xm−1 = x[m−1] .

Then following the definition of the tensor ∞-norm and
kG(1) vk∞ kG(1) x⊗(m−1) k∞ kGxm−1 k∞

kGk∞ = max ≥ = = 1,
v∈Cnm−1
\{0} kvk∞ kx⊗(m−1) k∞ kx[m−1] k∞
we prove the result.

Comparing with Theorem 2.3 in [113, Section 6.2.2], Lemma 2.2 specifies
that {C, D} has a special structure and the norm in the result must be the
∞-norm. Nevertheless, these restrictions do not obstruct its application to the
proof of the following lemma:
Lemma 2.3. Let {A, B} be an mth -order n-dimensional regular tensor pair.
Furthermore, assume that (aii...i , bii...i ) 6= (0, 0) for i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Denote
X
Di (A, B) := (α, β) ∈ C1,2 : |βaii...i − αbii...i | ≤ |βaii2 ...im − αbii2 ...im |
(i2 ,...,im )
6=(i,...,i)
Sn
for i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Then λ(A, B) ⊆ i=1 Di (A, B).
Proof. Take the diagonal matrices C = diag(a11...1 , a22...2 , . . . , ann...n ) and D =
diag(b11...1 , b22...2 , . . . , bnn...n ) in Lemma 2.2. Then from the assumption, we
know that {C, D} is a regular tensor pair.
When (α, β) ∈ λ(A, B) satisfies that det(βC − αD) = 0, it must hold that
βaii...i − αbii...i = 0 for some i. Thus it is obvious that (α, β) ∈ Di (A, B).
When (α, β) ∈ λ(A, B) does not satisfy that det(βC − αD) = 0, by Lemma
2.2, we have
(βC − αD)−1 β(C − A) − α(D − B)

∞
X βaii2 ...im − αbii2 ...im
= max ≥ 1.
i=1,2,...,n βaii...i − αbii...i
(i2 ,...,im )
6=(i,...,i)
Thus for some i, it holds that

X
|βaii...i − αbii...i | ≤ |βaii2 ...im − αbii2 ...im |,
(i2 ,...,im )
6=(i,...,i)
that is, (α, β) ∈ Di (A, B).

Lemma 2.3 is alike in form to the Gershgorin circle theorem. However, it is

not the desired result, since there are still α and β on the right-hand side of the
inequality. To avoid this, we introduce the chordal metric in C1,2 [49, 113]:
|α1 β2 − β1 α2 |
chord (α1 , β1 ), (α2 , β2 ) = p p .
|α1 | + |β1 |2 |α2 |2 + |β2 |2
2
Moreover, we can easily prove by the Cauchy inequality that

X p
|βaii2 ...im − αbii2 ...im | ≤ |α|2 + |β|2
(i2 ,i3 ,...,im )
6=(i,i,...,i)
v
u !2 !2
u X X
×u |aii2 ...im | + |bii2 ...im | .
u
t
(i2 ,i3 ,...,im ) (i2 ,i3 ,...,im )
6=(i,i,...,i) 6=(i,i,...,i)
Finally, we obtain the Gershgorin circle theorem for regular tensor pairs.
Theorem 2.4. Let {A, B} be an mth -order n-dimensional regular tensor pair.
Suppose that (aii...i , bii...i ) 6= (0, 0) for all i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Denote the disks
n o
Gi (A, B) := (α, β) ∈ C1,2 : chord (α, β), (aii...i , bii...i ) ≤ γi

for i = 1, 2, . . . , n, where
v
u 2 2
u P P
(i2 ,i3 ,...,im ) |aii2 ...im | + (i2 ,i3 ,...,im ) |bii2 ...im |
u
u
6=(i,i,...,i) 6=(i,i,...,i)
γi = .
t
|aii...i |2 + |bii...i |2
Sn
Then λ(A, B) ⊆ i=1 Gi (A, B).
If B is taken as the unit tensor I, then Theorem 2.4 reduces to the Gershgorin
circle theorem for single tensors, that is, [98, Theorem 6(a)].
Furthermore, the Gershgorin circle theorem can have a tighter version when
the order of the tensor pair is no less than 3. A tensor is called semi-symmetric
[86] if its entries are invariable under any permutations of the last (m − 1)
indices. Then for an arbitrary tensor A, there is a semi-symmetric tensor Ae
such that Axm−1 = Ax e m−1 for all x ∈ Cn . Concretely, the entries of Ae are
1 X
aii2 ...im = aii02 i03 ...i0m ,
|π(i2 , . . . , im )| 0 0
e
0
(i2 ,i3 ,...,im )∈
π(i2 ,i3 ,...,im )
where π(i2 , i3 , . . . , im ) denotes the set of all permutations of (i2 , i3 , . . . , im ) and

|π(i2 , i3 , . . . , im )| denotes the number of elements in π(i2 , i3 , . . . , im ). Note that
aii...i = e aii...i and
X X
|aii2 ...im | ≥ |e
aii2 ...im |.
(i2 ,i3 ,...,im ) (i2 ,i3 ,...,im )
6=(i,i,...,i) 6=(i,i,...,i)
Hence we have a tight version of the Gershgorin circle theorem for regular tensor
pairs, that is, the disk Gei (A, B) in the following theorem must be no larger than
the disk Gi (A, B) in Theorem 2.4.
Theorem 2.5. Let {A, B} be an mth -order n-dimensional regular tensor pair.
Assume that (aii...i , bii...i ) 6= (0, 0) for all i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Let Ae and B e be the
m−1 m−1 m−1
semi-symmetric tensors such that Ax = Ax
e and Bx = Bxm−1 for
e
n
all x ∈ C . Denote the disks
n o
Gei (A, B) := (α, β) ∈ C1,2 : chord (α, β), (aii...i , bii...i ) ≤ γ

ei
for i = 1, 2, . . . , n, where
v
u 2 2
u P P
(i2 ,i3 ,...,im ) |e
aii2 ...im | + (i2 ,i3 ,...,im ) |bii2 ...im |
u e
u
6=(i,i,...,i) 6=(i,i,...,i)
γ
ei = .
t
|aii...i |2 + |bii...i |2
Sn
Then λ(A, B) ⊆ i=1 Gei (A, B).
2.3.5 Backward Error Analysis

Backward error is a measurement of the stability of a numerical algorithm [53].
It is also widely employed as a stopping criteria for iterative algorithms. We
propose the framework of the backward error analysis (see [52] for the matrix
version) on the algorithms for generalized tensor eigenproblems.
Suppose that we obtain a computational eigenvalue (b α, β)
b and the corre-
sponding computed eigenvector x b of a regular tensor pair {A, B} by an algo-
rithm. Then they can be regarded as an exact eigenvalue and eigenvector of
another tensor pair {A + E, B + F}. Define the normwise backward error of the
computed solution as
n o
ηδ1 ,δ2 (b
α, β,
bx b) := min k(E/δ1 , F/δ2 )kF : β(A
b + E)b xm−1 = αb(B + F)bxm−1 .
Here δ1 and δ2 are two parameters. When taking δ1 = δ2 = 1, the backward

error is called the absolute backward error and denoted as η[abs] (b
α, β,
bx b). When
taking δ1 = kAkF and δ2 = kBkF , the backward error is called the relative
backward error and denoted as η[rel] (b
α, β,
bx b).
m−1 b xm−1 . Then the two tensors E and
Denote the residual b bBb
r := α x − βAb
F must satisfy that βE b xbm−1 − α bm−1 = b
bF x r, which can be rewritten into an
underdetermined linear equation [53, Chapter 21]
b ⊗(m−1)
δ βx

E(1) /δ1 , −F(1) /δ2 · 1 ⊗(m−1) = br.
δ2 α
bx
Hence the least-norm solution is given by
b ⊗(m−1) †

δ βx

r 1 ⊗(m−1) ,
E(1) /δ1 , −F(1) /δ2 = b
δ2 α
bx
where A† denotes the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of a matrix A [49, Section

5.5.2]. Notice that v† = v∗ /kvk22 and kbx⊗(m−1) k2 = kb xkm−1
2 . Therefore we
derive the explicit form of the normwise backward error.
Theorem 2.6. The normwise backward error is given by

1 kbrk2
(2.2) ηδ1 ,δ2 (b
α, β,
bx b) = E(1) /δ1 , −F(1) /δ2 =q · .
F b 2 + |δ2 α
|δ1 β| b|2 xkm−1
kb 2
Particularly, the absolute backward error is presented by
1 kbrk2
(2.3) η[abs] (b
α, β,
bx b) = q · m−1 ,
|β| 2
b + |bα|2 kb
x k2
and the relative backward error can be expressed as
1 kbrk2
(2.4) η[rel] (b
α, β,
bx b) = q · m−1 .
2
b 2 kAk + |b
|β| α |2 kBk 2 kb
x k2
F F
Furthermore, we can also discuss the componentwise backward error (see [52]
for the matrix version). Define the componentwise backward error corresponding
to the nonnegative weight tensors U, V of the computed solution as
n o
ωU ,V (b
α, β,
bx b + E)b
b) := min : β(A xm−1 = α
b(B + F)bxm−1 , |E| ≤ U, |F| ≤ V .
Take the absolute values on both sides of b

r = βE
b xbm−1 − α bm−1 and obtain
bF x

|b x|m−1 + |b
r| ≤ |β||E||b
b x|m−1 ≤ |β|U|b
α||F||b b x|m−1 + |b x|m−1 .
α|V|b
Hence the componentwise backward error has a lower bound
|b
ri |
ωU ,V (b
α, β,
bx b) ≥ max .
i=1,2,...,n m−1
|β|U|b
b x| + |b x|m−1
α|V|b
i
The equality can be attained by

b −1 · SUT m−1
E = · sign(β) α)−1 · SVT m−1 ,
and F = · −sign(b
where S and T are two diagonal matrices such that b r = S|br| and T x
b = |bx|.
Therefore we derive the explicit form of the componentwise backward error.
Theorem 2.7. The componentwise backward error is given by
|b
ri |
(2.5) ωU ,V (b
α, β,
bx b) = max .
i=1,2,...,n m−1
|β|U|b
b x| + |b x|m−1
α|V|b
i
2.4 Real Tensor Pairs

For tensor problems, the real case is quite different from the complex one. For
instance, an eigenvector associated with a real eigenvalue of a real tensor can
be complex and cannot be transformed into a real one by multiplying a scalar,
which will not occur for matrices. Therefore we need to discuss the real tensor
pairs separately.
2.4. REAL TENSOR PAIRS 21
2.4.1 The Crawford Number

We need to define the concept of “regular pair” in another way for real tensor
pairs. Let A and B be two mth -order real tensors in Rn×n×···×n . If there does
not exist a real vector x ∈ Rn \ {0} such that
Axm−1 = Bxm−1 = 0,
then we call {A, B} an R-regular tensor pair (“R” for “real”). A real eigenvalue
of an R-regular tensor pair with a real eigenvector is called an H-eigenvalue,
following the same name for single tensors [98]. Moreover, Zhang [134] proved
the existence of an H-eigenvalue for a real tensor pair, when m is even and n is
odd.
Obviously, a tensor pair is R-regular if it is regular. However, an R-regular
tensor pair need not be regular.
Example 2.2. Suppose that m is even. Let Z be a real tensor with

1, i = j,
zi1 i2 ...im = δi1 i2 δi3 i4 · · · δim−1 im , δij =
0, i 6= j.
Then Zxm−1 = x · (x> x)(m−2)/2 . As stated in [20], the H-eigenvalues of {A, Z}
are the Z-eigenvalues of A. For an arbitrary x ∈ Rn \{0}, it holds that Zxm−1 6=
0 since x> x > 0. Thus the real tensor pair {A, Z} is R-regular. Nevertheless,
y> y = 0 can be true for some complex vector y ∈ Cn \{0}. Thus if Aym−1 = 0,
then {A, Z} is a singular tensor pair.
Define the Crawford number (see [113, Section 6.1.3] for the matrix case) of
a real tensor pair {A, B} as
np o
cr (A, B) := min (Axm )2 + (Bxm )2 : kxk = 1, x ∈ Rn .
If cr (A, B) > 0, then we call {A, B} a definite tensor pair. A definite tensor pair
must be an R-regular pair, since (Axm )2 +(Bxm )2 = 0 if Axm−1 = Bxm−1 = 0.
We will now discuss the continuity of the Crawford number. Denote
n o
kAkL := max A ×1 x1 ×2 x2 · · · ×m xm : kxk k = 1, k = 1, 2, . . . , m ,
which is a norm on Rn×n×···×n defined by Lim [76]. Here, the norm in the
definition can be an arbitrary vector norm if not specified. Then the continuity
of the Crawford number can be seen from the following theorem.
Theorem 2.8. Let {A, B} and {A + E, B + F} be two real tensor pairs. Then
q
(2.6) cr (A + E, B + F) − cr (A, B) ≤ kEk2L + kFk2L .
Proof. By the definition of the Crawford number, we have
q 2 2
cr (A + E, B + F) = min (A + E)xm + (B + F)xm
kxk=1
hp p i
≥ min (Axm )2 + (Bxm )2 − (Exm )2 + (Fxm )2
kxk=1
r
≥ cr (A, B) − max (Exm )2 + max (Fxm )2 .
kxk=1 kxk=1
q
= cr (A, B) − kEk2L + kFk2L
The remaining part follows directly by

cr (A, B) = cr (A + E − E, B + F − F)
r
≥ cr (A + E, B + F) − max (−Exm )2 + max (−Fxm )2
kxk=1 kxk=1
q
= cr (A + E, B + F) − kEk2L + kFk2L .
By the same approach, we prove that small perturbations preserve the defi-
niteness of a real tensor pair.
Theorem 2.9. Let {A, B} be a definite tensor pair and {A + E, B + F} be a
real tensor pair. If s
(Exm )2 + (Fxm )2
max < 1,
kxk=1 (Axm )2 + (Bxm )2
then {A + E, B + F} is also a definite tensor pair.
Proof. By the definition of the Crawford number, we have
q 2 2
cr (A + E, B + F) = min (A + E)xm + (B + F)xm
kxk=1
hp p i
≥ min (Axm )2 + (Bxm )2 − (Exm )2 + (Fxm )2
kxk=1
s !
(Exm )2 + (Fxm )2
≥ cr (A, B) 1 − max .
kxk=1 (Axm )2 + (Bxm )2
When the item in the blanket is positive, we can conclude that cr (A+E, B+F) >
0, since cr (A, B) > 0.
A more concise and useful corollary also follows directly.
Corollary 2.10. Let {A, B} be a definite tensor pair and {A + E, B + F} be a
real tensor pair. If
q
(2.7) kEk2L + kFk2L < cr (A, B),
then {A + E, B + F} is also a definite tensor pair.
2.4.2 Symmetric-Definite Tensor Pairs

A tensor A is called symmetric [98] if its entries are invariable under any per-
mutations of the indices and is called positive definite [98] if Axm > 0 for all
x ∈ Rn \ {0}. (Thus m must be even.) Then we call {A, B} a symmetric-
definite tensor pair if A is symmetric and B is symmetric positive definite
(see [49, Section 8.7.1] for the matrix case). It is easy to understand that a
symmetric-definite tensor pair must be a definite pair as introduced in Section
2.4.1. Chang et al. [20] proved the existence of the H-eigenvalues for symmetric-
definite tensor pairs. Furthermore, there is a clear depiction of the maximal and
the minimal H-eigenvalues of a symmetric-definite tensor pair. Before stating
the main result, we need some lemmata.
2.4. REAL TENSOR PAIRS 23
Lemma 2.11. Let S and T be two mth -order n-dimensional real symmetric
tensors. Assume that m is even and T is positive definite. Define
WT (S) := Sxm : T xm = 1, x ∈ Rn .

Then WT (S) is a convex set.

Proof. We prove this lemma following the definition of convex sets. Let x1 , x2 ∈
Rn satisfy that T xm m m
1 = T x2 = 1. Then ω1 = Sx1 and ω2 = Sx2 are two
m
points in WT (S). Without loss of generality, we can assume that ω1 > ω2 . For
an arbitrary t ∈ (0, 1), we desire a vector x
e with S xem = tω1 + (1 − t)ω2 and
Txem = 1, so that tω1 + (1 − t)ω2 is also a point in WT (S).
Take x = τ x1 + x2 , and τ is selected to satisfy that
Sxm = [tω1 + (1 − t)ω2 ] · T xm .
Recall that A(u + v)m can be expanded for a symmetric tensor A

m
X m
A(u + v)m = Auk vm−k ,
k
k=0
where Auk vm−k = A ×1 u · · · ×k u ×k+1

v · · · ×m v.
Thus p(τ ) = Sxm − tω1 + (1 − t)ω2 · T xm is a polynomial about τ of degree
m. Moreover, the coefficient of the item τ m is
Sxm m
1 − [tω1 + (1 − t)ω2 ] · T x1 = (1 − t)(ω1 − ω2 ) > 0,
and the coefficient of the item 1 is
Sxm m
2 − [tω1 + (1 − t)ω2 ] · T x2 = t(ω2 − ω1 ) < 0.
Therefore there must be a real τ such that p(τ ) = 0. With such a τ , we can take
e = x/(T xm )1/m , since T is positive definite. Hence we prove this lemma.
x
When T is taken as I, we know from Lemma 2.11 that WI (S) is convex.
Furthermore, WI (S) is also compact, since the set {x ∈ Rn : Ixm = 1}, that
is, {x ∈ Rn : kxkm = 1}, is compact and the function x 7→ Sxm is continuous.
Thus the set WI (S) is actually a segment on the real axis.
Remark 2.12. For a real matrix S, the set {x> Sx : x> x = 1, x ∈ Rn } is called
the real field of values [55, Section 1.8.7]. Similarly, we define the real field of
values for an even-order real tensor S as WI (S). The above discussion reveals
that WI (S) is a segment on the real axis.
Denote by
ωmax := max {ω : ω ∈ WI (S)} and ωmin := min {ω : ω ∈ WI (S)} .
If S is positive definite, then ωmax ≥ ωmin > 0. Thus for any vector x ∈ Rn , we
have
ωmin Ixm ≤ Sxm ≤ ωmax Ixm ,
or, equivalently,
−1
1/m −1
1/m
ωmax Sxm ≤ kxkm ≤ ωmin Sxm ,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
London threatened an attack upon the Jews, stood boldly forth in
their defence, and told the Mayor and burgesses that he held them
responsible for the safety of the Jews, vowing a bloody vengeance if
any harm befell them.
1216–1272 Henry III. was as exacting as his predecessors; but
he lacked the firmness by which some of them had
prevented their subjects from trespassing on the royal preserves.
Under his weak rule the nobles and the towns grew in importance.
The decline of the King’s prerogative and the increased power of the
subjects were alike fatal to the Jews. The burgesses hated them as
the instruments of royal avarice and as interlopers in a community
for the freedom of which they themselves had paid a heavy price to
King or lord paramount. Their exemption from municipal burdens,
and their independence of municipal authority irritated their fellow-
townsmen. The constant interference of the King’s officers on behalf
of the King’s serfs was resented as a violation of privilege. These
grievances, reasonable enough, were intensified by religious
rancour, and by that antipathy which the English, perhaps more than
any other, bourgeoisie has always displayed towards foreigners. The
Jew’s isolation also added to his unpopularity, and all these causes,
acting upon the minds of the townspeople, gave rise to frequent acts
of aggression. The Kings, as has been seen, had always found it
hard to curb popular license, each attempt at repression, each
measure of precaution, only serving to embitter the ill-feeling towards
those on whose behalf these efforts were made. Under
1234
Henry III. the wrath of the burgesses broke out again
and again in many towns, notably at Norwich, where the Jews’
quarter was sacked and burnt, and the inhabitants narrowly escaped
massacre, and at Oxford, where town and gown joined in the work of
devastation and pillage.
The animosity of the towns was shared by the smaller nobility
who lay under heavy obligations to the Jewish money-lenders, but,
unlike their betters, had not the means of making their tenants pay
their debts for them. The great barons played towards the Jews
within their domains the same rôle as the King, only on a smaller
scale. They lent them their protection, were sleeping partners in their
usurious transactions, and upon occasion made them disgorge their
ill-gotten gains. This rôle was beyond the ability of the smaller
nobility. So far from sharing in the spoils of usury, they themselves
were among its worst victims. The King’s Continental expeditions
forced them to mortgage their estates to the Jews, from whose
clutches none but the lands of tenants on the royal demesne were
safe; and, if the holders of the pledge were afraid to enforce their
claims in person, they passed the bonds to the more powerful
nobles, who seized the land of their inferiors and sometimes refused
to part with it, even when the debtors offered to redeem it by paying
off the debt with interest.
In addition to these private motives, there were political reasons
to foment the anti-Jewish movement; common interests which bound
all the hostile elements together. It was felt by both Lords and
Commons that, but for the Jews’ ready money, Henry would not
have been able to carry on his unpopular wars abroad, or his anti-
constitutional policy at home, and to indulge that preference for
Provençal and other foreign favourites which his English subjects
resented so strongly. That the source of the King’s power to defy
public opinion was rightly guessed is shown by the enormous sums
which Henry extorted from the Jews at various times; in 1230, under
the pretext that they clipped and adulterated the coin of the realm—a
66
very common offence in those days —they were made to pay into
the Royal Exchequer one-third of their moveable property. The
operation was repeated in 1239. In 1241, 20,000 marks were
exacted from them; and two years after 60,000 marks—a sum equal
to the whole yearly revenue of the crown—above 4000 marks being
wrung from Aaron of York alone. In 1250 new oppression, on a
charge of forgery, elicited 30,000 marks from the same wretched
millionaire, and from 1252 to 1255 Henry robbed the Jews three
times by such exquisite cruelty that the whole race, in despair, twice
begged for permission to depart from England. But the King replied,
“How can I remedy the oppressions you complain of? I am myself a
beggar. I am spoiled, I am stripped of all my revenues”—referring to
the attempt made by the Council to secure constitutional
Government by the refusal of supplies—“I must have money from
any hand, from any quarter, or by any means.” He then delivered
them over to Richard, Earl of Cornwall, that he might persuade them
to stay, or, in the words of Matthew Paris, “that those whom the one
brother had flayed, the other might embowel.” The same witty
chronicler informs us that these spoliations excited no pity for the
victims in Henry’s Christian subjects, “because it is proved and is
manifest, that they are continually convicted of forging charters,
seals and coins,” and elsewhere he describes the Jews as “a sign for
the nations, like Cain the accursed.”
The burgesses and the barons in their anti-Jewish campaign
found powerful allies among the high dignitaries of the Church, who
had a two-fold set of grievances against Israel: practical grievances,
and grievances begotten of religious bigotry. Pope Innocent III., in
pursuance of his aggressive autocratism, had claimed the right of
filling vacant benefices all over the Catholic world. In England the
election to the see of Canterbury gave rise to a long struggle
between Pope and King, which ended in John’s shameful and abject
surrender. Cardinal Langton, Innocent’s nominee and
1207
instrument, on being raised to the primacy, made
common cause with John’s disaffected nobility, and the two acting in
concert frustrated the unpopular prince’s projected invasion of
France in 1213. The same Archbishop passed at his provincial
synod a decree, forcing the Jews to wear the badge and forbidding
them to keep Christian servants or to build new synagogues. He also
issued orders to his flock, threatening to excommunicate anyone
who should have relations with the enemies of Christ, or sell to them
the necessaries of life. The Jews were to be treated as a race
outside the pale of humanity. Langton’s example was followed by the
Bishops, many of whom exerted themselves both officially and
unofficially to check intercourse between Jews and Christians. The
crusade was carried on after Langton’s death. At one time the
Archbishop of Canterbury demands the demolition of the Jewish
synagogues, at another he calls upon the temporal power to prevent
Jewish converts from relapsing into infidelity; on a third occasion he
writes to the Queen remonstrating with her on her business
transactions with the Jews, and threatening the royal lady with
everlasting damnation. Similarly, time and again bishops hold the
thunderbolt of excommunication over the heads of all true believers
who should assist at a Jewish wedding, or accept Jewish hospitality.
These attacks by the Church were prejudicial to the King’s
pecuniary interests, and during Henry III.’s minority met with
vigorous opposition on the part of his guardians. When the young
King assumed the responsibilities of Government, he found himself
placed in a difficult position: his interests compelled him to protect
the Jews, while his loyalty to the Church forbade him to ignore the
behests of her ministers. He compromised by
1222
sanctioning the use of the badge, and by
1233
building a house for the reception of
Jewish converts (Domus Conversorum) on one hand, while, on the
other, he shielded, to the best of his ability, the hunted people from
the effects of ecclesiastical and popular wrath.
The war declared by the Papacy against the Jews on religious
principle was continued on grounds of practical necessity. Owing to
the enormous expenditure of money, incurred partly by the
architectural extravagance of the age, partly by an almost equally
extravagant hospitality; partly by the exactions of Kings and Popes,
and partly by bad management, the estates of the Church in England
had begun to be encumbered with debt in the twelfth century, and
loans were frequently contracted at ruinous interest.
A typical case has been preserved for us in the contemporary
chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond, a Norman-English monk of Bury
St. Edmunds. In his crabbed dog-Latin, the good brother tells the
story of his monastery’s distress: how under old Abbot Hugo’s feeble
rule the finances became entangled, how deficit followed in the
footsteps of deficit, and debt was added to debt, until there was no
ready money left to keep the rain out of the house. William the
sacristan was ordered by the old Abbot to repair a room which had
fallen into ruins; but as the order was not accompanied by the means
of carrying it out, Brother William would fain go to Benedict the Jew
for a loan of forty marks. The room was repaired, the rain was kept
out, but the creditor clamoured for his money. In the absence of
cash, the original loan grew rapidly at compound interest, and the
forty marks were swelled to a hundred pounds. Then the Jew came
to the Abbot with his bills and demanded to be repaid; not only these
hundred pounds, but also another hundred pounds, which the Abbot
owed him on his private account. Old Hugo, at his wits’ end, tries to
silence the Jew by granting him a bond for four hundred pounds to
be paid at the end of four years. The Jew goes away not displeased,
only to reappear at the expiration of the term. On his second visit he,
of course, found the Abbot as penniless as on the first, and extracted
from him a bond for eight hundred and eighty pounds, payable in
eleven years by annual instalments of eighty pounds. Furthermore,
he now produced other claims, sundry sums lent fourteen years
before, so that the whole debt amounted to twelve hundred pounds,
besides interest. The matter was left pending until old Hugo was
called to a world where there is neither borrowing nor lending at
compound interest; but only paying just debts.
Old Abbot Hugo is dead, and young Abbot Samson has
succeeded to his honours and to his deficits. Samson’s first anxiety
was to free the house from the claws of the insatiable Benedict and
other Hebrew and Christian harpies, and he did it in a manner
characteristic of the age. In some four years he paid off the debts of
the convent; but at the same time he obtained from the King
permission to revenge himself on the Jews. The royal abettor of what
followed was oblivious of the fact that he was himself more than an
accomplice in the usurer’s exactions. Huge sums were at that very
moment being extorted for royal purposes from the Jewish
communities which were in as constant a condition of indebtedness
to the Crown as others were to them. Nevertheless, the Jews were
driven out of the Liberties of Bury St. Edmunds by men-at-arms, and
forbidden to return thither under severe penalties; while sentence of
excommunication was pronounced against any one who should be
found sheltering them. Such was the condition of an English
monastery towards the end of the twelfth century.
Things went from bad to worse, until, in the thirteenth century,
we are told, “there was scarcely anyone in England, especially a
bishop, who was not caught in the meshes of the usurers.” We hear
of archiepiscopal buildings and priories falling into decay for want of
funds, and of churches that could not afford clergymen; of a bishop
seeking the intervention of the King in order to obtain respite of his
debts to the Jews, and of a prior asking for permission to let one of
his churches, as a common building, for five years, in order to pay off
part of the debt; of another bishop pledging the plate of his cathedral,
and of an abbot pledging the bones of the patron saint of his Abbey;
and we even read of an archbishop carrying his zeal for
retrenchment to the cruel length of imposing a limit to the number of
dishes with which the good Abbot of Glastonbury might be served in
his private room.
At the same time the ancient superstition regarding usury had
been invigorated in England, as on the Continent, by the diligent
preaching of Franciscan and Dominican friars, no less than by the
economic distress of debtors. It is true that the practice was not
confined to the Jews. Besides English usurers, the Italian bankers of
Milan, Florence, Lucca, Pisa, Rome, and other cities, had stretched
their tentacles over Europe. In France their position was confirmed
by a diplomatic agreement with Philip III. In England Italian usurers
scoured the country collecting taxes for the Pope and lending money
on their own account at exorbitant interest. As the Jews lent under
royal so did these Lombards lend under papal patronage. The
extortions of the former were not amenable to any tribunal; the latter
were in the habit of, in the words of the chronicler, “cloaking their
usury under the show of trade,” and thus carried on their business
under forms not forbidden by Canon law—even supposing that the
ecclesiastical courts would have cared or dared to condemn the
Pope’s agents. To the Italian usurers the great barons extended the
same protection as to the Jews, and for similar reasons; but the
smaller nobility and gentry, the clergy, and the lower orders of the
laity hated them intensely. One of these usurers, brother of the
Pope’s own Legate, was murdered at Oxford, while in London
Bishop Roger pronounced a solemn anathema against the whole
class. Henry III. was, after all, a Catholic and a King. The sufferings
of his subjects moved him to banish the Cahorsines from his
kingdom, and, were it not for his chronic impecuniosity, he might
have adopted similar measures against the Jews. As it was, in spite
of his religious scruples, he could ill afford to lose the rich income
which he still derived from them.
While the clamour against the Jewish usurers was gathering
force from bigotry, penury, and policy, the Jews were fast losing the
means which had hitherto enabled them to procure an inadequate
protection at the hands of the King and his great barons. Early in the
thirteenth century the merchants of Lombardy and Southern France,
as has been shown, began to compete with the Jewish money-
lenders. But the loss of the monopoly which the Jews had long
enjoyed was, in England, followed by greater losses still. During the
Civil Wars the ranks of the malcontents were filled with
1257–1267
all sorts of ruffians, some driven to rebellion by
discontent, others drawn to it by the hope of booty; and it was the
policy of the rebel barons to let all these disorderly elements loose
upon the King’s friends and supporters. The royal demesnes were
ruthlessly ravaged, and then the fury of the revolutionists, who
numbered amongst their allies both the lay and the clerical mobs,
was directed against the King’s protégés. Every success of the
popular party over the King was duly celebrated by a slaughter of his
Jewish serfs and destruction of their quarters. The appetite for
plunder and havoc was further stimulated by superstition, and at
Easter, 1263, the Jews were stripped and butchered in the City of
London. This was the prologue to a long tragedy that continued
throughout that troublous period. The spoliation of the London Jews
was repeated, and the Jewries of Canterbury, Northampton,
Winchester, Worcester, Lincoln, and Cambridge were attacked,
looted, and destroyed. Many of the unfortunate race were
massacred, while some saved themselves by baptism and others by
exorbitant ransom. Deeds and bonds were burnt, and thus the Jews
were deprived of the one bulwark that had stood between them and
annihilation; so much so, that in the last year of Henry III.’s reign
their contribution to the revenue of the crown fell from £5000 to 2000
marks.
Henry III. died in 1272, and Edward I. was proclaimed King.
Edward as heir-apparent had distinguished himself by his piety, no
less than by his valour and public spirit, and at the time of his
accession he was actually fighting the infidels in the Holy Land. His
loyalty to the Church prejudiced him against the Jews both as
“enemies of Christ” and as usurers. His scrupulous regard for the
interests of his subjects was calculated to deepen the prejudice.
Edward’s political ideal was a harmonious co-operation and
contribution of all classes to the welfare of the State. The Jewry, as
constituted under his predecessors, formed an anomaly and a
scandal. Measures of restriction had already been taken against the
Jews, and supplied a precedent for further proceedings in the same
direction. One of these measures was the statute of 1270, which
forbade the Jews to acquire houses in London in addition to those
which they already possessed, to enjoy a freehold howsoever held,
to receive rent-charges as security, and obliged them to return to the
Christian debtors, or to other Christians, the lands which they had
already seized, on repayment of the principal without interest. A
petition, preferred by the victims of this Act, to be allowed the full
privileges which accompanied the tenure of land under the feudal
system—namely, the guardianship of minors, the right to give wards
in marriage, and the presentation to livings—had elicited an
indignant protest from the Bishops, who expressed their outraged
feelings in language that was wanting neither in clearness nor in
vigour. The “perfidious Jews” were reminded that their residence in
England was entirely due to the King’s grace—a sentiment with
which Prince Edward had fully concurred. On his return
1274
from Palestine, he resumed the work of administrative
reform which he had commenced as heir-apparent.
Despite the statute of 1270, he found the Jews still absorbed in
the one occupation which they had practised for ages under the
pressure of necessity and with the sanction of custom and royal
patronage. The religious sensitiveness of a pilgrim fresh from the
Holy Land, acting on the political anxiety of a statesman honestly
desirous to do his duty by his subjects, compelled him to new
measures of restriction. Moreover, the reasons of self-interest which
had influenced his predecessors had lost much of their force. John’s
and Henry III.’s merciless rapacity had sapped the foundations of
Jewish prosperity; the barons’ even more merciless cruelty had
accomplished their ruin; and while the fortunes of the Jews waned,
those of their Italian rivals waxed; so the Jews, an unholy and
unpopular class at the best of times, had now also become an
unnecessary one. About the same time the Church renewed the
campaign against usurers. Pope Gregory X., by a
1274
decree passed at the Council of Lyons, requested the
princes of Christendom to double their efforts to suppress the
accursed trade. Edward hastened to obey the orders of the Church.
The transactions of the Florentine bankers in England were
subjected to enquiry and restriction by his order, and then he
proceeded against the Jews.
There were two ways open to him: either to withdraw his
countenance from the Jewish money-lenders, or to compel them to
give up the sinful practice. He was too humane to adopt the former
course; for the withdrawal of royal protection would have been the
signal for instant attack on the part of the people. How real this
danger was can be judged from the fact that in 1275 the Jews were
driven out of Cambridge at the instigation of Edward’s own mother.
He, therefore, chose the latter alternative, and issued a
1275
general and severe prohibition of usury, accompanied
with the permission that the Jews might engage in commercial and
industrial pursuits or in agriculture. The Jews were asked to change
at a moment’s notice a mode of life which had become a second
nature to them, and one which they had been encouraged—one may
almost say compelled—to pursue in England for two centuries. The
hardship of the prohibition was aggravated by the impossibility of
profiting by the permission. So long as the Jew was liable to violence
from his neighbours, he could hardly engage in any occupation
which involved the possession of bulky goods. Jewels and bonds
were the only kinds of moveable property that could easily be
secured against attack. As a writer who can scarcely be accused of
undue partiality to the Jews has observed: “The ancient house at
Lincoln seems to suggest by its plan and arrangements that the
inhabitants were prepared to stand a siege, and men who lived
under such conditions could hardly venture to pursue ordinary
67
avocations.” But there were more specific reasons explaining the
Jew’s inability to conform to Edward’s decree. A Jew could not
become a tradesman, because a tradesman ought to be a member
of a Guild; as a general rule, no one could join a Guild, who was not
a burgess; and the law forbade the Jews to become burgesses. But,
even if the law allowed it, the Jews could not, without violating their
religion, participate in the feasts and ceremonies of the Guilds. Nor
were the handicrafts more accessible to the Jews; for most of them
were in the hands of close corporations into which the despised Jew
could not easily gain admittance. Moreover, an apprenticeship of
many years was required, and apprenticeship necessitated
residence in the master’s house. Now the Church forbade the
Christians, on pain of excommunication, to receive Jews in their
houses, and, therefore, a Jewish boy, even if his own parents’
prejudices and the scruples of the Synagogue were overcome, could
not become a Christian’s apprentice. Agriculture was likewise out of
the question, because, even if the landlords would have them, the
Jews, being forbidden by their religion to take the oath of fealty,
could not become villeins. The popular hatred of the Jew rendered
the profession of peddler or carrier equally perilous. His Semitic face
and conspicuous yellow badge, which he was compelled to wear
from the age of seven, would have made him a target for insult and
assault on every road and at every fair in the country.
Thus the Jew, after two hundred years’ residence in England,
found himself labouring under all the disabilities of an alien, the only
occupation left open to him being that which foreign merchants were
allowed to pursue—namely, the export trade in wool and corn; but for
this occupation, limited at the best, a great capital was needed, and,
therefore, after the recent sufferings of the race, few could find profit
in it. For all these reasons, Edward’s alternative remained a dead
letter, and, as the Jews could not suffer themselves to starve, usury
continued rampant, and the second error proved worse than the first.
The distemper was far too complex to be cured by Edward’s simple
remedy. It might have been encouraged by impunity; it certainly was
accentuated by severity. The money-lenders, no longer under official
supervision, exceeded all bounds of extortion: the peril of detection
had to be paid for. The demand for loans increased as the supply
diminished, the rate of interest rose, and, as the transactions had to
be kept secret, all sorts of subterfuges were resorted to: a bond was
given for a multiple of the sum actually received, and the interest
often figured under the euphemism of “gift” or “compensation for
delay,” or, if the money-lender combined traffic in goods with traffic in
money, the interest was paid in kind. It was contrary to common
sense and human experience to expect that a royal statute should
have prevailed over what really was an inevitable necessity, and the
abuses that followed were only such as might have been anticipated
in a society where the borrowers were many and needy, the lenders
few and greedy, and the two classes were impelled to deal with each
other by the strongest of motives—the motive of self-preservation.
But even clandestine usury required capital, and the poorer
Jews, devoid of industrial skill or legal standing, despised by the
people, denounced by the clergy, helpless, hopeless, and
unscrupulous, betook themselves to highway robbery, burglary, coin-
clipping, or baptism. The penultimate source of revenue, which, as
has been noted, supplied already one of the most common charges
brought against the Jews, forced Edward to strike hard and quickly.
His severity was proportionate to the magnitude of the evil. The
depreciation of the currency due to the prevalence of forgery had led
to an alarming rise in the price of commodities; foreign merchants
had left the country, and trade fallen into stagnation. The greater
share of the blame was generally, and not unjustly, attributed to the
Jews. In one night all the Jews in the country were thrown into
prison, their domiciles were searched, and their effects seized.
Edward, in his anxiety to punish none but the guilty, issued an edict,
in which he warned his Christian subjects against false accusations,
such as might easily have been concocted by people eager to gratify
their religious bigotry, private malice, or cupidity. The enquiry
resulted in the conviction of many Jews and Christians. Of the latter,
three were sentenced to death and the rest to fines. But no mercy
was shown to the Jews. Two hundred and eighty of them were
hanged, drawn, and quartered in London alone, and all the houses,
lands, and goods of a great number were confiscated. A very few
took refuge in conversion, and received a moiety of the money
realised by the confiscation of their brethren’s property.
This deplorable state of things convinced Edward of the futility of
his policy. Other causes intensified his anger against the Jews. In the
first year of his reign a Dominican friar embraced Judaism, a little
later a Jew was burnt for blasphemy at Norwich, and, in 1278, a
Jewess at Nottingham created great excitement by abusing in
virulent terms the Christians in the market place; all this despite the
King’s proclamation that blasphemy against Christ, the Virgin Mary,
or the Catholic faith should be visited with loss of life or limbs, and
the penalties, not less severe, which the Church reserved for
apostates. Parliament now urged the expulsion of the
1281
Jews. Edward, his native moderation notwithstanding,
could not defy public opinion. The precedent of his mentor, the brave
and wise baron Simon de Montfort, also pointed in the same
direction. The latter had expelled the Jews from
About 1253
Leicester and given to the burgesses a solemn
68
promise that they should never return. The example could not but
have its influence upon Edward, and his own mental attitude was too
orthodox to render him impervious to the overwhelming prejudices of
the age. He had endeavoured to reconcile duty with humanity, and
had failed. Neither did the Christians wish to receive the Jews
amongst themselves, nor would the Jews have embraced such an
invitation. So long as they remained in England, mutual antipathy
and mutual bigotry would bar amalgamation, and therefore, under
the feudal system, the only calling which the Jews could pursue, in a
Christian country, would be the sinful traffic in money. Since the Jews
could not be improved, they ought to be removed.
While Edward was slowly coming to the one inevitable
conclusion, there arrived in England, at the end of 1286, a Bull from
the Pope Honorius IV., addressed to the archbishops and bishops.
After a lengthy enumeration of the familiar charges brought against
the Jews—their obedience to “a wicked and deceitful book, called
Talmud, containing manifold abominations, falsehoods, heresies,
and abuses”; their seduction of brethren snatched from infidelity, and
their perversion of Christians; their immorality, their criminal
intercourse with Christians, and other “horrible deeds done to the
shame of our Creator and the detriment of the Catholic faith”—
Honorius bade the bishops increase their severity, and their “spiritual
and temporal penalties” against the “accursed and perfidious”
1287
people. In consequence of this mandate, we find a
synod at Exeter passing ordinances restricting still
further the Jew’s discretion in matters of dress and behaviour. The
apostolic epistle accelerated Edward’s decision. It is also probable
that the King, on the eve of his struggle with Scotland and France,
thought it prudent to conciliate his English subjects by yielding to
their demand for the expulsion of the hated people.
On the 18th of July, 1290, a decree was issued ordering that all
Jews should leave England before the Feast of All Saints, sentence
of death being pronounced against any who should be found
lingering in the country after the prescribed date.
The severity of the measure was somewhat mitigated by the
king’s sincere anxiety to spare the exiles gratuitous insult and injury.
The officers charged with the execution of the decree were ordered
to ensure the safe arrival of the Jews on the coast, and their
embarkation. They were permitted to carry away all the effects that
were in their possession at the time, together with any pledges that
were not redeemed by the Christian debtors before a certain day. As
a further inducement for the payment of debts, the latter were given
to understand that, if they did not pay a moiety to the Jews before
their departure, they would remain debtors to the Treasury for the full
amount. A few Jews, personally known and favoured at Court, were
even allowed to sell their real property to any Christian who would
buy it. In a word, everything that could be done to alleviate the
misery of the exiles, was suggested by Edward.
The autumn was spent in hurried preparations. Those who had
money out at interest hastened to collect it, and those who had
property too unwieldy for transport hastened to part with it for what it
would yield. It is easy to imagine the enormous loss which this
compulsory liquidation must have entailed on the wretched Jews.
Their goods were sold at such prices as might have been expected
from the urgency of the case, and the knowledge that all that could
not be disposed of would have to be left behind. Their houses, their
synagogues, and their cemeteries fell into the hands of the King,
who distributed them among his favourites. Their bonds and
mortgages were also appropriated by the Royal Exchequer; but the
debts were imperfectly collected, and the remainder, after many
years’ delay, were finally remitted by Edward III.
As the fatal day drew near, the emigrants, sixteen thousand all
told, men, women, and children, might be seen hurrying from
different parts of England to the coast, some riding, the majority
trudging, sullen and weary, along the muddy roads, the men with
their scanty luggage slung over their shoulders, the women with their
babes in their arms. Thus they went their last journey on English soil,
under the bleak sky of an English October, objects of scorn rather
than of pity to the people among whom they had lived for more than
two hundred years. The King’s biographer relates with great
exultation how “the perfidious and unbelieving horde was driven forth
from England, in one day into exile,” and the English Parliament,
which nine years before had demanded the expulsion of the
unbelievers, now expressed the gratitude of the nation for the
fulfilment of their desire, by voting a tenth and a fifteenth to the King.
But if the English were glad to get rid of the Jews, the Jews were not
sorry to depart. It was only what they had already begged to be
allowed to do. Though born and bred among the English, they did
not even speak their language. They spoke the language of the
Normans who had brought them to England for their own purposes,
and ejected them when those purposes no longer held. They were
as foreign to the land on this day of their departure, as their fathers
had been on the day of their arrival, full two centuries earlier. Their
residence in England was a mere episode in their long career of
sorrow and trial, only a temporary halt on the weary pilgrimage which
began at Zion and would end in Zion.
Nor were their last experiences such as to sweeten their feelings
towards the land they were leaving. Despite the king’s merciful
provision, there was no lack of opportunities for expressing,
otherwise than by looks and words, the bitter hatred nourished
against the emigrants. The old chroniclers have handed down to us
an incident which may safely be regarded as only an extreme
specimen of the cruel memories which the children of Israel carried
away from England. On St. Denis’ Day the Jews of London set out
on their way to the sea-coast, and got on board a ship at the mouth
of the Thames. The captain had cast anchor during the ebb-tide, so
that his vessel grounded on the sands. Thereupon he requested the
passengers to land, till it was again afloat. They obeyed, and he led
them a long way off so that, when they returned to the river-side, the
tide was full. Then he ran into the water, hauled himself on board by
means of a rope, and referred the hapless Jews to Moses for help.
Many of them tried to follow him but perished in the attempt, and the
captain divided their property with his crew. The chroniclers add that
the ship-master and his sailors were afterwards indicted, convicted
of murder, and hanged. Similar crimes of robbery and murder were
brought home to the inhabitants of the Cinque Ports; but the
punishment of the offenders brought little consolation to the victims.
The sea proved as cruel to the Jews as the land had been.
Fierce storms swept the Channel, many of the ships were wrecked
and many of the exiles were robbed and drowned by the captains, or
were cast naked on the French coast. Those who escaped
shipwreck and murder reached the shore they sought only to find it
as inhospitable as the one from which they fled. A decree of the
Parliament de la Chandeleur, issued in obedience to the Pope’s
wishes, bade all Jewish refugees from England to quit the kingdom
by the middle of next Lent. Some of them, thanks to their French
tongue, may have escaped detection and remained in France,
sharing the treatment of their co-religionists already described;
another party, mostly poor, took refuge in Flanders; but the majority
joined their brethren in Spain, whither we shall follow them.
CHAPTER X
THE JEWS IN SPAIN
As we have seen in a previous chapter, the lot of the Spanish Jews

under Mohammedan rule was supremely enviable. Their condition in
the Christian parts of the Iberian Peninsula was less uniformly
prosperous. We there find two forces at work, one favourable to the
children of Israel and the other the exact opposite. The people and
the Church were ill-disposed towards them; the princes and the
nobles protected them. Their history is therefore marked by the
vicissitudes of the conflict between those two forces, and their
ultimate fate was to be determined by the result of that conflict. That
they should be mulcted by the Christian princes was only what might
have been expected. In Spain they were subjected, among other
burdens, to a hearth tax, a coronation tax, a tax on various kinds of
their own food, and a tax for the King’s dinner. In Portugal, under
Sancho II., they had to pay, besides other things, a fleet tax, and
were obliged to supply a new anchor and cable to every vessel built
for the royal marine. On the other hand, they enjoyed a large
measure of communal autonomy, settled their disputes in their own
Beth-Din, or religious tribunal, and even passed capital sentence on
culprits of their own persuasion. Despite manifold restrictions in the
exercise of certain trades and handicrafts, they often succeeded in
eluding the law, which in the earlier days was not rigorously
enforced, and in pursuing a variety of occupations. They dealt in
corn, cattle, silk, spices, timber, and slaves. They were goldsmiths,
mechanics, peddlers, and pawnbrokers. The trade in cloth and wool,
both domestic and foreign, was largely in their hands; but they
abstained from the manufacture of cloth, partly owing to prohibitive
legislation by the State, as was the case in Majorca during the
fourteenth century, and partly in obedience to the Talmud, which
denounced weaving as an immoral occupation, inasmuch as it
tended to facilitate undesirable propinquity between the sexes. Many
of the upper classes found equally, or more, lucrative employment as
physicians, clerks of the Treasury, and public officials.
Then was formed in Spain that higher type of Jew which
compelled even the Christians to forget their contempt for the race.
Visigothic legislation was ignored in practice, and the Jews ceased
to be systematically trampled upon. Pope Alexander
1061–1073
II., the coadjutor and immediate predecessor of
Gregory Hildebrand, in a decree issued to all the bishops of Spain,
draws a distinction between the Saracens and the Jews, the latter
being described as worthy of toleration on account of “their
readiness to serve.” Some of the municipalities treated them on
equal terms with the Christians, and in both Aragon and Castile the
Jews were allowed to act as judges. The Christian princes found in
them some of the qualities which commanded their respect towards
the Arabs, and they would fain avail themselves of their lights. They
employed Jewish physicians, Jewish financiers, and Jewish tutors.
Alfonso VI. of Castile began by diplomacy the
1085
liberation of Spain, which was to be accomplished by
the military prowess of his successors. In this initial stage of the
movement, despite the persecution proclaimed against the “enemies
of Christ” by Pope Gregory VII., the Castilian King employed the
astute and polyglot Jews, notably his private physician, Isaac Ibn
Shalbib, and after the conquest of Toledo he confirmed to the Jews
of that town all the liberties which they had enjoyed under the
Mohammedan rulers. Then Alfonso, resolved to attack the Saracen
King of Seville, whom he had used as a tool in taking Toledo, thought
it necessary to apprise his former ally of his change of policy and bid
him defiance. The delicate task was entrusted to Ibn Shalbib,
attended by five hundred Christian knights. The Jewish diplomatist
carried out his master’s instructions so thoroughly and so boldly that
the Mohammedan prince, in his fury, forgot the inviolability of the
ambassadorial character, and nailed the unfortunate envoy to a
gibbet.
The comparative liberty enjoyed by the Spanish Jews, under the
aegis of the Kings, brought with it opulence and luxury. The Spanish
synagogues were renowned throughout Europe for their beauty, and
the private dwellings of the Spanish Jews were not less noted for
their magnificence. The Spanish Jews, as their brethren elsewhere,
set much store by social distinction, and knew how to combine
extravagance with economy. The stately names and expensive
equipages of the Christian nobility were copied by them, not wisely
but too well. Their profuse ostentation of wealth in domestic
decoration and personal apparel excited the envy, and royal
patronage the jealousy of their neighbours. These feelings,
intensified by religious antipathy, laid up a fund of prejudice which
only awaited a suitable opportunity for converting itself into active
hostility. The same causes which brought about the eruption of anti-
Judaism in other countries operated in Spain also. First, the
Crusading spirit which, though it produced no immediate massacres
in Spain, as it did in Central Europe, remained longer alive by the
Spaniard’s undying enmity to the Jew’s cousin, the Saracen invader,
whose invasion, it must be remembered, the Jews had facilitated, or,
at all events, welcomed. Secondly, the hatred of heresy which,
fostered by the monastic orders, found in Spain a more fertile soil
than in any other Christian country. So strong and so pertinacious
were these influences in the Iberian Peninsula that the Kings who
favoured the Jews were often obliged to assuage public irritation,
and to save their protégés from the ebullitions of popular fanaticism
by separating them from the Christians. Already in the eleventh
century we hear of a “Jewish barrier” erected in Tudela. This
separation was also countenanced by the Church, though from
widely different motives. In Coyaca, in the Asturias, a
1079
Council decreed that no Christian should reside in the
same house with Jews, or partake of their food. Persons caught
transgressing this canon were sentenced, if noblemen, to one year’s
excommunication, if of lower degree to one hundred lashes. Thus
the normal isolation of Israel was encouraged by two powers which,
acting with opposite intent, converged to the same dangerous result.
But it was not until late in the thirteenth century that the gathering
animosity came to a head, and declared itself in more methodical
efforts at segregation and humiliation, conversion or extirpation.
1212 Meanwhile the undercurrent of prejudice was
checked by the action of the Kings. When, for instance,
the Crusaders from across the Pyrenees, red-handed from the
massacre of the Albigenses, came to Spain as allies in the war
against the Mohammedans, and began the work of exterminating the
infidels by attacking the Jews of Toledo, King Alfonso IX. warded off
the blows, and the misdirected zeal of the foreign fanatics was
condemned even by the populace of Castile. When,
1215
again, Innocent III. at the Fourth Lateran Council
ordered the Jews to be marked off by a special badge, the Jews of
Spain, through their influence at Court, succeeded in avoiding the
effects of the decree. King Alfonso connived at their disobedience,
and vain were the unwearied efforts of Innocent’s successor,
Honorius III., to enforce the Jewish disabilities. Similar
1220
immunity from the ignominious ordinances of St.
Peter’s See was secured by the Jews of Aragon through the
exertions of the physician of King Jayme I. Several
1248
years after King Ferdinand allotted three parishes to
the Jewish community of Seville, and surrounded them with a wall
for their defence. Within this enclosure were the exchanges,
markets, slaughter-houses, synagogues and tribunals of the Jews,
while their cemetery spread over an adjacent field.
1252–84 But how long could the Court maintain its
Judaeophile attitude in the teeth of the growing
animosity against the race? Alfonso X., surnamed the Wise,
employed Jews as Chamberlains and Chancellors of the Exchequer,
as well as in the construction of his famous Astronomical Tables. But
the same King was forced to throw a sop to Cerberus
1261
by enacting that “the Jews may not enlarge, elevate, or
beautify their synagogues.” Another law of Alfonso’s contained the
following ominous statement: “Although the Jews deny Christ, they
are still suffered in all Christian countries, so that they should remind
everybody that they belong to that race which crucified Jesus.”
During this reign conversion of a Christian to Judaism was punished
with death. No Jew was to be elevated to any public office. The
wearing of the badge was made compulsory, and anyone seen
without it was, if rich, fined; if poor, scourged. Social intercourse
between Jews and Christians was made a punishable offence. The
Jews should not appear abroad on Good Friday. Though himself in
the hands of a Jewish physician, Alfonso decreed that no Christian
should take medicine prepared by a Jew. These restrictions,
however, were tempered by measures protective of the religion, the
persons and the property of the Jews; and they did not really
become active until a much later period.
1263 Two years later there occurred in Barcelona, under
the auspices of Jayme I., the famous disputation
between the Dominican Pablo Christiani and the Rabbi
Nachmanides, which led to the latter’s exile, and to the expurgation
69
of the Talmud.
In the meantime the silly and sinister fables which caused the
persecution of the Jews in England and elsewhere met with
credence in Spain also. But, if the pious were exasperated by these
stories, less foolish persons found a sufficient food for their spleen in
the better founded charges of rapacity constantly brought against the
Jewish money-lenders; while the holy indignation of others was
aroused by the occasional sight of Christian proselytes seeking in
the arms of the Synagogue a spiritual rest which they could not find
in the Church; or by the spectacle, even less edifying, of Christian
noblemen seeking in the arms of a Jewish bride the wherewithal to
regild their tarnished escutcheons. All these grievances, assiduously
nursed by fanatical clerics and loudly voiced by insolvent debtors,
culminated in violent attacks upon the “accursed people” during the
fourteenth century. The Jewish colonies were repeatedly looted and
burnt and the inmates slaughtered without mercy and without regard
About 1330
to sex or age. In one attack of this kind in the kingdom
of Navarre no fewer than ten thousand Israelites
perished.
But the time had not yet come for a general persecution of Israel
in Spain. The demon of Jew-hatred, if irritated, was also curbed by

Textbook Theory and Computation of Tensors Multi Dimensional Arrays 1St Edition Yimin Wei Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Theory and Computation of Tensors Multi Dimensional Arrays 1St Edition Yimin Wei Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory and Computation of Tensors:

Multi-Dimensional Arrays 1st Edition

Multi dimensional Approaches Towards New Technology

Compilation for Secure Multi party Computation 1st

Simultaneous Systems of Differential Equations and

Group Theory and Computation N.S. Narasimha Sastry

Control of Magnetotransport in Quantum Billiards Theory

From Algebraic Structures to Tensors Digital Signal and

Mathematics and Computation A Theory Revolutionizing

The Three Dimensional Navier Stokes Equations Classical

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978-0-12-803953-3 (print)

For information on all Academic Press publications

Publisher: Glyn Jones

Typeset by SPi Global, India

1 Introduction and Preliminaries 3

2 Generalized Tensor Eigenvalue Problems 11

3 Fast Tensor-Vector Products 39

3.3.3 Block Tellsors . 49

5 Definitions and Basic Properties 81

6 Multilinear Systems with M-Tensors 97

6.4.2 The Newton Method for Symmetric M-Equat. iolls 111

Subject Index 135

1.1 What Are Tensors?

Example 1.1. As we know, a table is one of the most common realizations of

Theory and Computation of Tensors. 3

Sub. 1 Sub. 2 Sub. 3

Table 1.1: The first way to print S.

Table 1.2: The second way to print S.

Example 1.4. The Taylor expansion is a well-known mathematical tool. The

A multivariate function f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) that is infinitely differentiable at a

Denoting x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )> and a = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an )> , then we can rewrite

Pr(Yt = i1 | Yt−1 = i2 , . . . , Y1 = it ) = Pr(Yt = i1 | Yt−1 = i2 , . . . , Yt−s = is+1 ),

which is a stochastic matrix, that is, pij ≥ 0 for all i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n and

pijk = Pr(Yt = i | Yt−1 = j, Yt−2 = k),

(Xt )i,j = Pr(Yt = i, Yt−1 = j).

Then the stationary probability distribution in the product space X satisfies

for all i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n. If we further assume that

Pr(Yt = i, Yt−1 = j) = Pr(Yt = i) · Pr(Yt−1 = j)

1.2 Basic Operations

• To treat or visualize the multidimensional structures, we often reshape a

biσ(1) iσ(2) iσ(3) = ai1 i2 i3 .

A<[1,2,3]> = A<[1,3,2]> = A<[2,1,3]> = A<[2,3,1]> = A<[3,1,2]> = A<[3,2,1]> .

• Modal tensor-matrix multiplications are essential in this book, which are

Particularly, if A, M1 and M2 are all matrices, then A ×1 M1 ×2 M2 =

1.3 Tensor Decompositions

which represents the matrix A as a sum of several rank-one matrices. For an

is called the CP-rank of the tensor A. The computation or estimation of the

1.4 Tensor Eigenvalue Problems

Generalized matrix eigenvalue problems are essential in scientific and engineer-

The detailed definition will be introduced later.

2.1 A Unified Framework

Theory and Computation of Tensors. 11

the H-eigenvalues [98], that is,

Axm−1 = λx[m−1] , where x[m−1] = [xm−1

the E-eigenvalues and the Z-eigenvalues [99], that is,

Axm−1 = λx with x> x = 1,

and the D-eigenvalues [103], that is,

Axm−1 = λDx with x> Dx = 1,

where D is a positive definite matrix. We shall present several other potential