Subsection 36.4.3 Norm and the dot product in \C^n
As we reminded ourselves in Discovery 36.6, we already have a way to compute length in \C^1\text{,} the complex plane: for z = a + b \ci\text{,} the complex modulus
\begin{gather}
\cmodulus{z} = \sqrt{a^2 + b^2}\label{equation-inner-prod-concepts-complex-modulus}\tag{\(\star\)}
\end{gather}
is the distance from the origin to the point in the complex plane corresponding to z\text{.} If we imagine z as not just a point but as a vector from the origin to that terminal point instead, then \cmodulus{z} is the length of that vector.
Just as norm in \R^n for increasing n follows the pattern
\begin{align*}
\text{in } \R^1 \amp \text{:} \amp \norm{(x_1)} \amp = \sqrt{x_1^2} = \abs{x_1} \text{,} \\
\text{in } \R^2 \amp \text{:} \amp \norm{(x_1,x_2)} \amp = \sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2} \text{,} \\
\text{in } \R^3 \amp \text{:} \amp \norm{(x_1,x_2,x_3)} \amp = \sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2} \text{,}
\end{align*}
and so on, it seems it would make sense to have norm in \C^n follow a similar pattern, starting at (\star):
\begin{align*}
\text{in } \C^1 \amp \text{:} \amp \norm{(z_1)} \amp = \sqrt{\cmodulus{z_1}^2} = \cmodulus{z_1} \text{,} \\
\text{in } \C^2 \amp \text{:} \amp \norm{(z_1,z_2)} \amp = \sqrt{\cmodulus{z_1}^2 + \cmodulus{z_2}^2} \text{,} \\
\text{in } \C^3 \amp \text{:} \amp \norm{(z_1,z_2,z_3)} \amp = \sqrt{\cmodulus{z_1}^2 + \cmodulus{z_2}^2 + \cmodulus{z_3}^2} \text{,}
\end{align*}
and so on.
To trace this back to an appropriate complex inner product on \C^n (as we attempted to do in Discovery 36.6), the formula
\begin{equation*}
\cmodulus{z}^2 = z\cconj{z}
\end{equation*}
seems to suggest that the dot product
\begin{equation*}
\udotprod{x}{y} = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + \dotsb + x_n y_n
\end{equation*}
from \R^n needs a complex conjugate in it in to adapt it for use in \C^n\text{:}
\begin{gather}
\udotprod{w}{z} = w_1 \cconj{z}_1 + w_2 \cconj{z}_2 + \dotsb + w_n \cconj{z}_n\text{.}\label{equation-inner-prod-concepts-complex-dot-product}\tag{\(\star\star\)}
\end{gather}
This definition of the standard inner product on \C^n satisfies Axiom CIP 4, and so the formula
\begin{equation*}
\unorm{z} = \sqrt{\udotprod{z}{z}}
\end{equation*}
both makes sense mathematically and matches up with the pattern of norms in \C^n explored above.
Subsection 36.4.6 Dot products as matrix multiplication
In Subsection 13.3.9, we discussed how dot product on \R^n is essentially just matrix multiplication. Viewing vectors in \R^n as n \times 1 column vectors, we have
\begin{equation*}
\udotprod{u}{v} = \utrans{\uvec{u}} \uvec{v} = \utrans{\uvec{v}} \uvec{u} \text{.}
\end{equation*}
As in Axiom RIP 1, the order doesn't matter, so we can use either of the two expressions above.
For a complex inner product, the order does matter. We can still realize the complex dot product on \C^n as matrix multiplication, but it will look different in different orders of matrix multiplication:
\begin{equation*}
\udotprod{w}{z} = \utrans{\uvec{w}} \cconj{\uvec{z}} = \utrans{\cconj{\uvec{z}}} \uvec{w} \text{.}
\end{equation*}
Since we have already combined conjugate-transpose into a single computation, the complex adjoint, we will prefer the “reversed order” expression:
\begin{equation*}
\udotprod{w}{z} = \adjoint{\uvec{z}} \uvec{w} \text{.}
\end{equation*}
And to maintain consistency, we will also prefer the “reversed order” expression for the real dot product:
\begin{equation*}
\udotprod{u}{v} = \utrans{\uvec{v}} \uvec{u} \text{.}
\end{equation*}
Subsection 36.4.7 Other inner products on \R^n and \C^n
Inner products on \R^n.
In Discovery 36.7, we explored modifying the formula
\begin{equation*}
\udotprod{u}{v} = \utrans{\uvec{v}} \uvec{u}
\end{equation*}
to produce other inner products on \R^n\text{.} Recognizing that there is a secret identity matrix in the dot-product-as-matrix-multiplication formula,
\begin{equation*}
\udotprod{u}{v} = \utrans{\uvec{v}} I \uvec{u} \text{,}
\end{equation*}
we explored the conditions on an n \times n matrix A so that
\begin{gather}
\uvecinprod{u}{v} = \utrans{\uvec{v}} A \uvec{u}\label{equation-inner-prod-concepts-modified-real-dot-product}\tag{\(\dagger\)}
\end{gather}
would also satisfy the axioms for a real inner product.
While we came up with some interesting observations in the case n = 2 in Discovery 36.7, the direct approach is best here.
The last condition is best left as it is, instead of trying to get more specific about properties of A and its entries that would guarantee this property. A real matrix A that satisfies both of above the conditions necessary to generate an inner product on \R^n is called a positive definite matrix.
Positive definite matrices are easy to construct: if P is any invertible matrix, then A = \utrans{P} P is always positive definite. And it also turns out that every inner product on \R^n is of the form (\dagger) for some positive definite matrix A. (See Subsection 36.6.2, where these two facts are stated formally.)
Notice what happens if we construct a pairing using A = \utrans{P} P\text{:}
\begin{equation*}
\uvecinprod{u}{v}
= \utrans{\uvec{v}} \utrans{P} P \uvec{u}
= \utrans{(P \uvec{v})} (P \uvec{u})
= \dotprod{(P \uvec{u})}{(P \uvec{v})}\text{.}
\end{equation*}
Recall that every invertible matrix P is somehow a transition matrix (Proposition 22.5.6). So the above calculation can be interpreted as saying that the new inner product on \R^n afforded by positive definite matrix A = \utrans{P} P is equivalent to the dot product by first transforming \R^n by P.Inner products on \C^n.
Everything works almost exactly the same for \C^n as for \R^n\text{,} except now it requires that the complex matrix A be self-adjoint positive definite (instead of merely symmetric positive definite) in order for the pairing
\begin{gather}
\uvecinprod{w}{z} = \adjoint{\uvec{z}} A \uvec{w}\label{equation-inner-prod-concepts-modified-complex-dot-product}\tag{\(\dagger\dagger\)}
\end{gather}
to be a complex inner product. Regarding the positive definite condition, it is not obvious but the self-adjoint condition also guarantees that \adjoint{\uvec{z}} A \uvec{z} is always real for every column vector \uvec{z} in \C^n\text{,} making the comparison \adjoint{\uvec{z}} A \uvec{x} \gt 0 actually meaningful.
Just as in the real case, complex positive definite matrices are easy to construct: if P is any invertible complex matrix, then A = \adjoint{P} P is always positive definite. And again, it also turns out that every inner product on \C^n is of the form (\dagger\dagger) for some positive definite matrix A. (Again, see Subsection 36.6.2, where these two facts are stated formally.)
Just as in the real case, if we construct a pairing using A = \adjoint{P} P\text{:}
\begin{equation*}
\uvecinprod{w}{z}
= \adjoint{\uvec{z}} \adjoint{P} P \uvec{w}
= \adjoint{(P \uvec{z})} (P \uvec{w})
= \dotprod{(P \uvec{w})}{(P \uvec{z})}\text{.}
\end{equation*}
So again we can say that the new inner product on \C^n afforded by positive definite matrix A = \adjoint{P} P is equivalent to the complex dot product by first transforming \C^n by P.