In this study, a novel method of evaluating the impact of straddle monorail noise on residential areas considering both objective and subjective effects was developed, in view of the singleness of the existing evaluation method of the track noise impact on residential areas. Using a questionnaire, the quantified straddle monorail noise data for five typical apartment complexes with rail-side layouts were combined with data on the subjective feelings of residents regarding this noise. Then, a model for evaluating the impact of the straddle monorail noise on residential areas under subjective and objective conditions was constructed. Finally, by considering the impacts of straddle monorail noise in residential areas, prevention and control measures were proposed that targeted the acoustic source, sound propagation process, and receiving location. The proposed evaluation method, which considered the needs of residents, could be used to improve straddle monorail noise impact evaluation systems and provide a scientific reference for improving acoustic environments in residential areas along straddle monorail lines.
Citation: J. S. Peng, Q. W. Kong, Y. X. Gao, L. Zhang. Straddle monorail noise impact evaluation considering acoustic propagation characteristics and the subjective feelings of residents[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7307-7336. doi: 10.3934/era.2023370
[1] | Hui Zhou, Bo Lu, Huaguang Gu, Xianjun Wang, Yifan Liu . Complex nonlinear dynamics of bursting of thalamic neurons related to Parkinson's disease. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 109-133. doi: 10.3934/era.2024006 |
[2] | Zilu Cao, Lin Du, Honghui Zhang, Lianghui Qu, Luyao Yan, Zichen Deng . Firing activities and magnetic stimulation effects in a Cortico-basal ganglia-thalamus neural network. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(6): 2054-2074. doi: 10.3934/era.2022104 |
[3] | Yapeng Zhang, Yu Chen, Quanbao Ji . Dynamical analysis of spontaneous Ca2+ oscillations in astrocytes. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 405-417. doi: 10.3934/era.2024020 |
[4] | Xia Shi, Ziheng Zhang . Multiple-site deep brain stimulation with delayed rectangular waveforms for Parkinson's disease. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(5): 3471-3487. doi: 10.3934/era.2021048 |
[5] | Feibiao Zhan, Jian Song, Shenquan Liu . The influence of synaptic strength and noise on the robustness of central pattern generator. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 686-706. doi: 10.3934/era.2024033 |
[6] | Chengtian Ouyang, Huichuang Wu, Jiaying Shen, Yangyang Zheng, Rui Li, Yilin Yao, Lin Zhang . IEDO-net: Optimized Resnet50 for the classification of COVID-19. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7578-7601. doi: 10.3934/era.2023383 |
[7] | Honghui Zhang, Yuzhi Zhao, Zhuan Shen, Fangyue Chen, Zilu Cao, Wenxuan Shan . Control analysis of optogenetics and deep brain stimulation targeting basal ganglia for Parkinson's disease. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(6): 2263-2282. doi: 10.3934/era.2022115 |
[8] | Ping Wang, Changgui Gu, Huijiu Yang, Haiying Wang . Identify the characteristic in the evolution of the causality between the gold and dollar. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3660-3678. doi: 10.3934/era.2022187 |
[9] | Ariel Leslie, Jianzhong Su . Modeling and simulation of a network of neurons regarding Glucose Transporter Deficiency induced epileptic seizures. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(5): 1813-1835. doi: 10.3934/era.2022092 |
[10] | Yi Chen, Benhuan Nie, Zhehao Huang, Changhong Zhang . Spatial relevancy of digital finance in the urban agglomeration of Pearl River Delta and the influence factors. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(8): 4378-4405. doi: 10.3934/era.2023224 |
In this study, a novel method of evaluating the impact of straddle monorail noise on residential areas considering both objective and subjective effects was developed, in view of the singleness of the existing evaluation method of the track noise impact on residential areas. Using a questionnaire, the quantified straddle monorail noise data for five typical apartment complexes with rail-side layouts were combined with data on the subjective feelings of residents regarding this noise. Then, a model for evaluating the impact of the straddle monorail noise on residential areas under subjective and objective conditions was constructed. Finally, by considering the impacts of straddle monorail noise in residential areas, prevention and control measures were proposed that targeted the acoustic source, sound propagation process, and receiving location. The proposed evaluation method, which considered the needs of residents, could be used to improve straddle monorail noise impact evaluation systems and provide a scientific reference for improving acoustic environments in residential areas along straddle monorail lines.
Throughout this article, let Cm×n stand for the set of all m×n matrices over the field of complex numbers; A∗ stands for the conjugate transpose of A∈Cm×n; r(A) stands for the rank of A∈Cm×n; Im stands for the identity matrix of order m and [A,B] stands for a columnwise partitioned matrix consisting of two submatrices A and B. We introduce the concept of generalized inverses of a matrix. For an A∈Cm×n, the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse of A is defined to be the unique matrix X∈Cn×m that satisfies the four Penrose equations:
(1) AXA=A, (2) XAX=X, (3) (AX)∗=AX, (4) (XA)∗=XA. | (1.1) |
A matrix X∈Cn×m is called an {i,…,j}-generalized inverse of A∈Cm×n, denoted by A(i,…,j), if it satisfies the ith, …,jth matrix equations in (1.1). Notice that solutions of each of the four equations in (1.1) are not necessarily unique. Hence, the set of all {i,…,j}-generalized inverses of the matrix A is usually denoted by the symbol {A(i,…,j)}. There are altogether 15 sorts of {i,…,j}-generalized inverses of A by the above definition, but the following
A†, A(1,3,4), A(1,2,4), A(1,2,3), A(1,4), A(1,3), A(1,2), A(1) | (1.2) |
are usually called the eight commonly-used types of generalized inverses of A in the literature. Admittedly, the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse of a matrix is a natural extension of the standard inverse of an invertible matrix, which has become one of the basic and classic concepts in matrix theory and its applications due to its usefulness in dealing with singular matrices. For more basic results and facts concerning generalized inverses of matrices and their properties, we refer the reader to the three references [1,2,3].
Let us consider the following two general matrix equalities:
A1B(i1,…,j1)1C1+A2B(i2,…,j2)2C2+⋯+AkB(ik,…,jk)kCk=D, | (1.3) |
A1B(i1,…,j1)1A2B(i2,…,j2)2⋯AkB(ik,…,jk)kAk+1=A, | (1.4) |
where it is assumed that A1, A2, …, Ak+1, B1, B2, …, Bk, C1, C2, …, Ck and A and D are matrices of appropriate sizes. Clearly, (1.3) and (1.4) are generalizations of various concrete matrix equalities that involve mixed operations of ordinary sums and products of several matrices and their generalized inverses. For the sake of exposition, let us take the following two well-known examples:
B(i,…,j)=B(i1,…,j1)1+B(i2,…,j2)2+⋯+B(ik,…,jk)k, | (1.5) |
(Bk⋯B2B1)(i,…,j)=B(i1,…,j1)1B(i2,…,j2)2⋯B(ik,…,jk)k, | (1.6) |
which are called the parallel sum of matrices and the reverse-order law for generalized inverses of multiple matrix products, respectively. As demonstrated in Lemma 2.2 below, generalized inverses of a matrix can be written as certain linear and bilinear matrix expressions involving two arbitrary matrices. Hence, the two matrix equalities in (1.3) and (1.4) can be equivalently represented as two kinds of linear and nonlinear matrix equations involving multiple arbitrary matrices (variable matrices).
As we know, in algebra theory, or a given algebraic expression or equality that involves variable entries, algebraists can propose many kinds of questions relevant to its properties and performances, but of particular interest regarding the expression or equality is to determine explicit conditions under which the expression is invariant with respect to the variable entries or the equality holds for some/all values of the variable entries included. In view of this consideration, it is natural to ask the questions related to determining necessary and sufficient conditions for the matrix equalities in the context of (1.3) and (1.4) to hold respectively for some/all of the generalized inverses of the matrices in them. In fact, this sort of research problems were proposed and investigated by lots of authors focused generalized inverses of matrices and its various applications [4,5,6,7]. Prompted by this kind of work, the present author and his collaborators considered a selection of linear and nonlinear matrix expressions or matrix equalities that involve one or more arbitrary matrices, established a fundamental theory related to the invariance properties of different types of linear and nonlinear matrix expressions and presented their essential utilizations in the characterizations of many kinds of matrix equalities that involve algebraic operations of generalized inverses of matrices [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Particularly in two recent papers [15,16], the present author considered (1.4) for {1}-generalized inverses of matrices of B1, B2, …, Bk with k=2,3, deriving different types of identifying conditions under which the given matrix equalities always hold with respect to all possible {1}-generalized inverses of the given matrices by using a diversity of precise rank equalities associated with certain specified block matrices that are constructed from the given matrices in (1.4). Obviously, characterization problems of (1.3) and (1.4) involve lots of difficult and divisive issues because they are quite inclusive for various possible choices of {i,…,j}-generalized inverses of the given matrices, thus, there exist many concrete cases of (1.3) and (1.4) that we need to give further deep explorations.
As an ongoing study of the above algebraic equality characterization problems on matrices, the main objective of this article is to consider several cases of the matrix equalities in (1.3) and (1.4) for the mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices with k=2,3, and to give identifying conditions under which these algebraic matrix equalities always hold by using a series of ordinary but skillful calculations of ranks of matrices. The rest of this paper is organized in five sections. In Section 2, the present author introduces a sequence of well-known or existing basic formulas, facts and results related to ranks, ranges and generalized inverses of matrices that we shall utilize in the derivations of our main results regarding (1.3) and (1.4). In Section 3, the author derives necessary and sufficient conditions for the matrix equalities in (1.3) to hold with mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices for k=2,3 by means of the elementary but the powerful block matrix representation method (BMRM) and the matrix rank method (MRM). In Section 4, the author gives identifying conditions for the matrix equalities in (1.4) to always hold with mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices for k=2,3. In Section 5, the author presents a variety of parallel conclusions related to several kinds of algebraic matrix equalities that involve different mixed algebraic operations of given matrices and their weighted {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses. An application is presented in Section 6 for a matrix equality involving generalized inverses of a 2×2 block matrix. Concluding remarks are given in Section 7.
In this section, the author presents some well-known or existing results and conclusions regarding a two-sided linear matrix equation, the general expressions of generalized inverses of a matrix, as well as some equalities and inequalities associated with ranks of block matrices, which we shall adopt as fundamental and feasible matrix analysis tools in the examinations of the algebraic matrix equality problems described in Section 1.
Lemma 2.1 ([17]). Let
AXB=C | (2.1) |
be a two-sided linear matrix equation, where A∈Cm×n, B∈Cp×q and C∈Cm×q are given. Then, the following four statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (2.1) is solvable for X.
(b) R(A)⊇R(C) and R(B∗)⊇R(C∗).
(c) r[A,C]=r(A) and r[BC]=r(B).
(d) AA†CB†B=C.
In this case, the general solution of (2.1) can be written in the following parametric expression
X=A†CB†+FAU+VEB, | (2.2) |
where FA=In−A†A, EB=Ip−BB† and U,V∈Cn×p are arbitrary matrices. Particularly, (2.1) holds for all matrices X∈Cn×p if and only if
[A,C]=0 or [BC]=0. | (2.3) |
Lemma 2.2 ([17]). Let A∈Cm×n. Then, the general expressions of A(1) and A(1,2) can be written as
A(1)=A†+FAU+VEA, | (2.4) |
A(1,2)=(A†+FAU)A(A†+VEA), | (2.5) |
where EA=Im−AA†, FA=In−A†A and U,V∈Cn×m are arbitrary.
Recall a simple fact in linear algebra that a matrix is null if and only if its rank is zero. As a direct consequence of this fact, we see that two matrices A and B of the same size are equal if and only if the matrix rank equality r(A−B)=0 holds. In other words, these obvious two equivalent statements connect the matrix equality A=B alternatively to the matrix rank equality r(A−B)=0. In view of this assertion, we can see that if certain nontrivial analytical formulas for calculating the rank of A−B are obtained, then we can directly employ them to reveal essential connections between the two matrices. Of course, the usefulness of this proposed methodology is based on the fact that we can precisely calculate ranks of matrix expressions by using elementary operations of matrices. As a matter of fact, algebraists realized that numerous matrix rank formulas can be established in reasonable ways, while these matrix rank formulas have been recognized as powerful tools to construct, characterize and understand hidden structures and properties of various algebraic matrix expressions and matrix equalities.
Lemma 2.3 ([18]). Let A∈Cm×n,B∈Cm×k and C∈Cl×n. Then,
r[A,B]≥r(A), | (2.6) |
r[ABC0]≥r(B)+r(C). | (2.7) |
Lemma 2.4 ([19,20]). Let A∈Cm×n, B∈Cm×k, C∈Cl×n and D∈Cl×k be given. Then,
maxA(1)r(D−CA(1)B)=min{r[C,D], r[BD], r[ABCD]−r(A)}, | (2.8) |
maxA(1,2)r(D−CA(1,2)B)=min{r(A)+r(D),r[C,D],r[BD], r[ABCD]−r(A)}. | (2.9) |
Therefore,
CA(1)B=D holds for all A^{(1)}⇔[C,D]=0, or [BD]=0, or r[ABCD]=r(A); | (2.10) |
CA(1,2)B=D holds for all A^{(1,2)} ⇔A=0 and D=0, or [C,D]=0, or [BD]=0, or r[ABCD]=r(A). | (2.11) |
The cases of the matrix equalities in (1.3) for k=2 and {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2 are given by
A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2=D, | (3.1) |
A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2=D, | (3.2) |
A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1)2C2=D, | (3.3) |
A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2=D, | (3.4) |
where A1∈Cm×p1, B1∈Cq1×p1, C1∈Cq1×n, A2∈Cm×p2, B2∈Cq2×p2, C2∈Cq2×n and D∈Cm×n. In this section, we first give conditions under which the four matrix equalities in (3.1)–(3.4) always hold for all {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2.
Theorem 3.1. Let A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, C2 and D be as given in (3.1). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (3.1) holds for all B(1)1 and B(1)2.
(b) A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1 and B(1)2 and A1B†1C1+A2B†2C2=D holds.
(c) Any one of the following 9 conditions holds:
(i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(ii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(iii) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(iv) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(v) A1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(vi) C1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(vii) A2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(viii) C2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(ix) r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).
Proof. By (2.10), we first obtain that (2.10) holds for all generalized inverses B(1)1 if and only if
[A1,D−A2B(1)2C2]=0 or [C1D−A2B(1)2C2]=0 or r[B1C1A1D−A2B(1)2C2]=r(B1). | (3.5) |
Subsequently, we see from (2.10) that the first equality in (3.5) holds for all generalized inverses B(1)2 if and only if
A1=0 and any one of [A2,D]=0, [C2D]=0, r[B2A2C2D]=r(B2), | (3.6) |
as required for (i), (ii) and (v) in (c). Meanwhile by (2.10), the second equality in (3.5) holds for all generalized inverses B(1)2 if and only if
C1=0 and any one of the three conditions [A2,D]=0, [C2D]=0, r[B2A2C2D]=r(B2), | (3.7) |
as required for (iii), (iv) and (vi) in (c). Further, by (2.8),
maxB(1)2r[B1C1A1D−A2B(1)2C2]=maxB(1)2r([B1C1A1D]−[0A2]B(1)2[0,C2])=min{r[B1C10A10A2], r[B1C1A100C2], r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]−r(B2)}. | (3.8) |
Hence, the third equality in (3.5) holds for all generalized inverses B(1)2 if and only if
r[B1C10A10A2]=r(B1) or r[B1C1A100C2]=r(B1) or r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2). | (3.9) |
Also by (2.6) and (2.7), we see that
r[B1C10A10A2]≥r[B1,C1]+r(A2)≥r(B1) and r[B1C1A100C2]≥r[B1A1]+r(C2)≥r(B1). |
Combining the rank inequalities with the first two equalities in (3.9) yields (vii) and (viii) in (c). The third rank inequality in (3.9) is just (ix) in (c).
It can be seen from the nine conditions in Theorem 3.1(c) that if the matrices Ai≠0 and Ci≠0 in (3.1) for i=1,2, then (3.1) holds for all B(1)1 and B(1)2 if and only if Condition (ix) in Theorem 3.1(c) holds. This special fact brings convenience of using the assertions in Theorem 3.1.
By a similar approach, we can show that the following two theorems hold, and we omit the details of their proofs.
Theorem 3.2. Let A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, C2 and D be as given in (3.3). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (3.2) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1)2.
(b) A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1 and B(1)2 and A1B†1C1+A2B†2C2=D holds.
(c) Any one of the following 12 conditions holds:
(i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(ii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(iii) B1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(iv) B1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(v) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(vi) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(vii) A1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(viii) B1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(ix) C1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(x) A2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xi) C2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xii) r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).
In particular, assume that the matrices Ai≠0 and Ci≠0 in (3.4) for i=1,2. Then (3.3) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1)2 if and only if Condition (xii) in (c) holds.
Theorem 3.3. Let A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, C2 and D be as given in (3.4). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (3.4) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2.
(b) A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2 and A1B†1C1+A2B†2C2=D holds.
(c) Any one of the following 16 conditions holds:
(i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(ii) A1=0, B2=0 and D=0.
(iii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(vi) B1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(v) B1=0, B2=0 and D=0.
(vi) B1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(vii) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(viii) C1=0, B2=0 and D=0.
(ix) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(x) A1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(xi) B1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(xii) C1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(xiii) A2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xiv) B2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xv) C2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xvi) r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).
In particular, assume that the matrices Ai≠0 and Ci≠0 in (3.4) for i=1,2. Then (3.4) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2 if and only if Condition (xvi) in (c) holds.
The case of (1.3) for k=3 is given by
A1B(i1,…,j1)1C1+A2B(i2,…,j2)2C2+A3B(i3,…,j3)3C3=D, | (3.10) |
where A1∈Cm×p1, B1∈Cq1×p1, C1∈Cq1×n, A2∈Cm×p2, B2∈Cq2×p2, C2∈Cq2×n, A3∈Cm×p3, B3∈Cq3×p3, C3∈Cq3×n and D∈Cm×n. Clearly, there are eight possible expressions in (3.10) for {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1, B2 and B3. In the remaining part of this section, we only give two groups of conditions under which (3.10) always holds for all {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1, B2 and B3. It is easy to see that, if any one Ai and Ci in (3.10) is zero for i=1,2,3, (3.10) reduces to two-term cases on the left-hand side. So, we assume that Ai≠0 and Ci≠0 in (3.10) for i=1,2,3 without loss of generality.
Theorem 3.4. Let Ai, Bi, Ci and D be as given in (3.10) and assume that Ai≠0 and Ci≠0 for i=1,2,3. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2+A3B(1)3C3=D holds for all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1)3.
(b) A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2+A3B(1)3C3 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1)3 and A1B†1C1+A2B†2C2+A3B†3C3=D holds.
(c) r[B100C10B20C200B3C3A1A2A3D]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).
Proof. Rewriting A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2+A3B(1)3C3=D as A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2=D−A3B(1)3C3 and applying Theorem 3.1(c), we obtain that it holds for all B(1)1 and B(1)2 if and only if r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D−A3B(1)3C3]=r(B1)+r(B2). Consequently, applying (2.8) and (2.10) to the matrix equality yields (c).
By a similar approach, we can show the following result, so we omit the details of its proof.
Theorem 3.5. Let Ai, Bi, Ci and D be as given in (3.10) and assume that Ai≠0, Bi≠0 and Ci≠0 for i=1,2,3. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2+A3B(1,2)3C3=D holds for all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1,2)3.
(b) A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2+A3B(1,2)3C3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1,2)3 and A1B†1C1+A2B†2C2+A3B†3C3=D holds.
(c) r[B100C10B20C200B3C3A1A2A3D]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).
By induction, we are able to derive the following result.
Theorem 3.6. Assume that Ai≠0, Bi≠0 and Ci≠0 in (1.3) are for i=1,2,…,k. Then, (1.3) holds for all mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1,B2,…,Bk if and only if
r[B1000C10B200C2⋮⋮⋱⋮⋮00⋯BkCkA1A2⋯AkD]=r(B1)+r(B2)+⋯+r(Bk). |
The cases of the matrix equalities in (1.4) for k=2 and {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2 are given by
A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3=A, | (4.1) |
A1B(1)1A2B(1,2)2A3=A, | (4.2) |
A1B(1,2)1A2B(1)2A3=A, | (4.3) |
A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3=A, | (4.4) |
where A1∈Cm1×m2, B1∈Cm3×m2, A2∈Cm3×m4, B2∈Cm5×m4, A3∈Cm5×m6 and A∈Cm1×m6. Particularly, the case of (4.1) for {1}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2 was studied in [11,15], and the following results were obtained.
Theorem 4.1 ([11,15]). Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3 and A be as given in (4.1). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (4.1) holds for all B(1)1 and B(1)2.
(b) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3 is invariant with respect to B(1)1 and B(1)2 and A1B†1A2B†2A3=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 6 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iii) A=0 and A3=0.
(iv) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).
(v) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).
(vi) r[−A0A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
In what follows, we give the results on the other three cases for {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2 in (4.1).
Theorem 4.2. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3 and A be as given in (4.2). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (4.2) holds for all B(1)1 and B(1,2)2.
(b) A1B(1)1A2B(1,2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1 and B(1,2)2 and A1B†1A2B†2A3=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 7 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iii) A=0 and B2=0.
(iv) A=0 and A3=0.
(v) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).
(vi) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).
(vii) r[−A0A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
Proof. The equivalence of (a) and (b) follows from the definition of the Moore–Penrose inverse of a matrix and its uniqueness.
By Lemma 4.1(c), we first see that the product A1B(1)1A2B(1,2)2A3=A holds for all generalized inverses B(1)1 if and only if any one of the following three conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and A2B(1,2)2A3=0.
(iii) r[AA1A2B(1,2)2A3B1]=r(B1).
Consequently, we derive the conditions under which (ii) and (iii) hold, respectively. By (2.11), the equality A2B(1,2)2A3=0 in (ii) of the above three conditions holds for all generalized inverses B(1,2)2 if and only if
A2=0 or B2=0 or A3=0 or r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2) | (4.5) |
holds. So, the above condition (ii) is equivalent to (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) in (c). By (2.9),
maxB(1,2)2r[AA1A2B(1,2)2A3B1]=maxB(1,2)2r([AA10B1]+[0A2]B(1,2)2[A3,0])=min{r[AA10B1]+r(B2), r[AA100B1A2], r[AA10B1A30], r[−A0A10A2B1A3B20]−r(B2)}. |
Hence, the rank equality in (iii) of the above three conditions holds for all generalized inverses B(1,2)2 if and only if
r[AA10B1]+r(B2)=r(B1) or r[AA100B1A2]=r(B1) or r[AA10B1A30]=r(B1) | (4.6) |
or r[−A0A10A2B1A3B20]=r(B1)+r(B2). | (4.7) |
By (2.7),
r[AA10B1]+r(B2)≥r(A)+r(B1)+r(B2)≥r(B1) |
holds. Combining it with the first equality in (4.6) leads to r(A)=r(B2)=0; thus, the first equality in (4.6) is equivalent to (iii) in (c). By (2.6) and (2.7),
r[AA100B1A2]≥r(A)+r[B1,A2]≥r(B1) |
holds. Combining it with the second equality in (4.6) leads to A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1); thus, the second equality in (4.6) is equivalent to (v) in (c). By (2.7),
r[AA10B1A30]≥r[AA3]+r(B1)≥r(B1) |
holds. Combining it with the third equality in (4.6) leads to A=0 and A3=0; thus the third equality in (4.6) is involved in (iv) in (c). The rank equality in (4.7) is equivalent to (vii) in (c).
We also declare that the following theorems can be shown by a similar approach, so the details of the proofs are omitted.
Theorem 4.3. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3 and A be as given in (4.4). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (4.4) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2.
(b) A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2 and A1B†1A2B†2A3=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 8 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and B1=0.
(iii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iv) A=0 and B2=0.
(v) A=0 and A3=0.
(vi) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).
(vii) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).
(viii) r[−A0A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
The case of (1.4) for k=3 is given by
A1B(i1,…,j1)1A2B(i2,…,j2)2A3B(i3,…,j3)3A4=A, | (4.8) |
where A1∈Cm1×m2, B1∈Cm3×m2, A2∈Cm3×m4, B2∈Cm5×m4, A3∈Cm5×m6, B3∈Cm7×m6, A4∈Cm7×m8 and A∈Cm1×m8. Particularly, the case of (4.8) for {1}-generalized inverses of B1, B2 and B3 was studied in [16], and the following results were obtained.
Theorem 4.4 ([16]). Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4 and A be as given in (4.8). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1)3A4=A holds for all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1)3.
(b) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1)3 and A1B†1A2B†2A3B†3A4=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 10 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iii) A=0 and A3=0.
(iv) A=0 and A4=0.
(v) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).
(vi) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).
(vii) A=0 and r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3).
(viii) A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
(ix) A=0 and r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r[A3B2B30]=r(B2)+r(B3).
(x) r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r[0A2B1A3B20B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).
For the other seven matrix equalities in (4.8) with mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices, we have the following results.
Theorem 4.5. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4 and A be as given in (4.8). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1,2)3A4=A holds for all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1,2)3.
(b) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1,2)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1,2)3 and A1B†1A2B†2A3B†3A4=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 11 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iii) A=0 and A3=0.
(iii) A=0 and B3=0.
(v) A=0 and A4=0.
(vi) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).
(vii) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).
(viii) A=0 and r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3).
(ix) A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
(x) A=0 and r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r[A3B2B30]=r(B2)+r(B3).
(xi) r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r[0A2B1A3B20B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).
Proof. The equivalence of (a) and (b) follows from the definition of the Moore–Penrose inverse of a matrix and its uniqueness.
By Lemma 4.1(c), we first see that the matrix equality A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1,2)3A4=A holds for all generalized inverses B(1)1 and B(1)2 if and only if any one of the following 6 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iii) A=0 and A3B(1,2)3A4=0.
(iv) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).
(v) A=0 and r[0A2A3B(1,2)3A4B2]=r(B2).
(vi) r[−A0A10A2B1A3B(1,2)3A4B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
We next derive the conditions under which (iii), (v) and (vi) hold, respectively. By (2.10), the equality A3B(1,2)3A4=0 in (iii) of the above 6 conditions holds for all generalized inverses B(1,2)3 if and only if
A3=0 or B3=0 or A4=0 or r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3) | (4.9) |
holds. By (2.8),
maxB(1,2)3r[0A2A3B(1,2)3A4B2]=maxB(1,2)3r([0A20B2]+[0A3]B(1,2)3[A4,0])=min{r[A2B2]+r(B3), r[0A2A3B2], r[0A20B2A40], r[00A20A3B2A4−B30]−r(B3)}=min{r[A2B2]+r(B3), r[0A2A3B2], r[A2B2]+r(A4), r[00A20A3B2A4B30]−r(B3)}. |
So, the rank equality r[0A2A3B(1,2)3A4B2]=r(B2) in (v) of the above 6 conditions holds for all B(1,2)3 if and only if
r[A2B2]+r(B3)=r(B2) or r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2) or r[A2B2]+r(A4)=r(B2) | (4.10) |
or
r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r(B2)+r(B3), | (4.11) |
where the first and third rank equalities in (4.10) mean that B3=0 and A4=0 by noting that r[A2B2]≥r(B2). By (2.9),
maxB(1,2)3r[−A0A10A2B1A3B(1,2)3A4B20]=maxB(1,2)3r([−A0A10A2B10B20]+[00A3]B(1,2)3[A4,0,0])=min{r[−A0A10A2B10B20]+r(B3), r[−A00A100A2B10A3B20], r[−A0A10A2B10B20A400], r[−A00A100A2B10A3B20A4−B300]−r(B3)}=min{r[A0A10A2B10B20]+r(B3), r[A00A100A2B10A3B20], r[A0A10A2B10B20A400], r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]−r(B3)}. |
Hence, the rank equality in (vi) of the above 6 conditions holds for all B(1,2)3 if and only if
r[A0A10A2B10B20]+r(B3)=r(B1)+r(B2) or r[A00A100A2B10A3B20]=r(B1)+r(B2) | (4.12) |
or r[A0A10A2B10B20A400]=r(B1)+r(B2) or r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3). | (4.13) |
Note from (2.6) and (2.7) that the following four groups of matrix rank inequalities
r[A0A10A2B10B20]+r(B3)≥r[A0A10A2B10B20]≥r(A)+r[A2B1B20]≥r(B1)+r(B2), | (4.14) |
r[A00A100A2B10A3B20]≥r(A)+r[0A2B1A3B20]≥r[A2B1B20]≥r(B1)+r(B2), | (4.15) |
r[A0A10A2B10B20A400]≥r[A0A10A2B10B20]≥r(A)+r[A2B1B20]≥r(B1)+r(B2), | (4.16) |
r[A0A10A2B10B20A400]≥r[0A2B10B20A400]=r(A4)+r[A2B1B20]≥r(B1)+r(B2) | (4.17) |
hold. Combining (4.14) with the first equality in (4.12) leads to
A=0, B3=0 and r[00A10A2B10B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2). | (4.18) |
This condition, however, is included in (4.9). Combining (4.15) with the second equality in (4.12) leads to
A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r(B1)+r(B2). | (4.19) |
Combining (4.16) and (4.17) with the first equality in (4.13) leads to
A=0 and A4=0. | (4.20) |
Combining the conditions in (i), (ii) and (iv) of the proof with (4.12)–(4.20) leads to the 11 statements in (c).
The following 6 theorems can be established by a similar approach; therefore, the details of the proofs are omitted.
Theorem 4.6. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4 and A be as given in (4.8). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3B(1)3A4=A holds for all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1)3.
(b) A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3B(1)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1)3 and A1B†1A2B†2A3B†3A4=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 12 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and B1=0.
(iii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iv) A=0 and B2=0.
(v) A=0 and A3=0.
(vi) A=0 and A4=0.
(vii) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).
(viii) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).
(ix) A=0 and r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3).
(x) A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
(xi) A=0 and r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r[A3B2B30]=r(B2)+r(B3).
(xii) r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r[0A2B1A3B20B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).
Theorem 4.7. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4 and A be as given in (4.8). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3B(1,2)3A4=A holds for all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1,2)3.
(b)A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3B(1,2)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1,2)3 and A1B†1A2B†2A3B†3A4=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 13 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and B1=0.
(iii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iv) A=0 and B2=0.
(v) A=0 and A3=0.
(vi) A=0 and B3=0.
(vii) A=0 and A4=0.
(viii) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).
(ix) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).
(x) A=0 and r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3).
(xi) A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
(xii) A=0 and r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r[A3B2B30]=r(B2)+r(B3).
(xiii) r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r[0A2B1A3B20B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).
In addition to the classical definition in (1.1), some other weighted generalized inverses of a matrix can be defined from common solutions of given matrix equations derived from theory and applied points of view, alternatively there are many approaches and discussions concerning different kinds of weighted generalized inverses of matrices in the literature. Here, we mention such an example of weighted generalized inverses: given three matrices A∈Cm×n, P∈Cp×m and Q∈Cn×q, A is said to be weighted Moore–Penrose invertible with respect to the two matrices (P,Q) if and only if there exists a matrix X∈Cq×p that satisfies the following four matrix equations
(1) AQXPA=A, (2) XPAQX=X, (3) (PAQX)∗=PAQX, (4) (XPAQ)∗=XPAQ. | (5.1) |
In this case, the matrix X is denoted by X=A(†,P,Q). In addition, a matrix X is said to be a {i,…,j,P,Q}-generalized inverse of A, denoted by A(i,…,j,P,Q), if it satisfies the ith, …,jth matrix equations in (5.1), while the set of all {i,…,j,P,Q}-generalized inverses of the matrix A is, as usual, denoted by {A(i,…,j,P,Q)}.
Concerning the existence of X satisfying (5.1) and the corresponding expressions of X, we have the following results.
Lemma 5.1. Let A∈Cm×n, P∈Cp×m and Q∈Cn×q. Then, A is weighted Moore–Penrose invertible with respect to the two matrices (P,Q) if and only if the two range equalities R((PA)∗)=R(A∗) and R(AQ)=R(A) hold, or equivalently, the matrix rank equality r(PAQ)=r(A) holds. In such a case, the matrix equality
A(i,…,j,P,Q)=(PAQ)(i,…,j) | (5.2) |
always holds. In particular, the general expressions of A(1,P,Q) and A(1,2,P,Q) are given by
A(1,P,Q)=(PAQ)(1)=(PAQ)†+(Iq−(AQ)†AQ)G+H(Ip−PA(PA)†), | (5.3) |
A(1,2,P,Q)=(PAQ)(1,2)=((PAQ)†+(Iq−(AQ)†AQ)G)PAQ((PAQ)†+H(Ip−PA(PA)†)), | (5.4) |
and the following matrix equalities
AQA(1,P,Q)=AQA(1,2,P,Q)=A(PA)†+AQH(Ip−PA(PA)†), | (5.5) |
A(1,P,Q)PA=A(1,2,P,Q)PA=(AQ)†A+(Iq−(AQ)†AQ)GPA, | (5.6) |
PAQA(1,P,Q)=PAQA(1,2,P,Q)=PA(PA)†+PAQH(Ip−PA(PA)†), | (5.7) |
A(1,P,Q)PAQ=A(1,2,P,Q)PAQ=(AQ)†AQ+(Iq−(AQ)†AQ)GPAQ | (5.8) |
hold, where G,H∈Cq×p are two arbitrary matrices.
Proof. By Lemma 2.1, the first equation in (5.1) is solvable for the matrix X if and only if R(AQ)⊇R(A) and R((PA)∗)⊇R(A∗) hold, both of which are equivalent to the matrix range equalities R((PA)∗)=R(A∗) and R(AQ)=R(A), or equivalently, the matrix rank equality r(PAQ)=r(A). In this case, the first equation in (5.1) is equivalent to PAQXPAQ=PAQ. In this case, we obtain (5.3) and (5.4) from Lemma 2.2.
Analogous to (4.8), it is possible to formulate four additive matrix equalities that involve weighted {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses as follows:
A1B(1,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,P2,Q2)2C2=D, | (5.9) |
A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,P2,Q2)2C2=D, | (5.10) |
A1B(1,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2C2=D, | (5.11) |
A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2C2=D, | (5.12) |
where A1∈Cm×q1, P1∈Cp1×s1, B1∈Cs1×t1, Q1∈Ct1×q1, C1∈Cp1×n, A2∈Cm×q2, P2∈Cp2×s2, B2∈Cs2×t2, Q2∈Ct2×q2, C2∈Cp2×n and D∈Cm×n are given.
Theorem 5.2. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (5.9) holds for all B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2.
(b) A1B(1,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,P2,Q2)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)†C1+A2(P2B2Q2)†C2=D holds.
(c) Any one of the following 9 conditions holds:
(i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(ii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(iii) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(iv) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(v) A1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(vi) C1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(vii) A2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(viii) C2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(ix) r[P1B1Q10C10P2B2Q2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).
Proof. By (5.3), the matrix equality in (5.9) is equivalent to
A1(P1B1Q1)(1)C1+A2(P2B2Q2)(1)C2=D. |
In this case, applying Theorem 3.1 to the matrix equality yields the results in (a), (b) and (c).
The following theorems can be shown by a similar approach.
Theorem 5.3. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (5.10) holds for all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P1,Q1)2.
(b) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,P2,Q2)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)†C1+A2(P2B2Q2)†C2=D holds.
(c) Any one of the following 12 conditions holds:
(i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(ii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(iii) B1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(iv) B1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(v) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(vi) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(vii) A1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(viii) B1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(ix) C1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(x) A2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xi) C2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xii) r[P1B1Q10C10P2B2Q2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).
Theorem 5.4. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (5.12) holds for all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,2,P1,Q1)2.
(b) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,2,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)†C1+A2(P2B2Q2)†C2=D holds.
(b) Any one of the following 16 conditions holds:
(i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(ii) A1=0, B2=0 and D=0.
(iii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(vi) B1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(v) B1=0, B2=0 and D=0.
(vi) B1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(vii) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.
(viii) C1=0, B2=0 and D=0.
(ix) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.
(x) A1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(xi) B1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(xii) C1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).
(xiii) A2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xiv) B2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xv) C2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).
(xvi) r[P1B1Q10C10P2B2Q2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).
Analogous to (1.4), it is possible to formulate some matrix equalities that involve alternative products of matrices and their weighted {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses. In what follows, we present a sequence of extensions of the results in the preceding sections to matrix equalities that involve mixed products of two or three weighted {1}- and {1,2}-inverses. In particular, we are able to construct four matrix equalities that involves weighted {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses as follows:
A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3=A, | (5.13) |
A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3=A, | (5.14) |
A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3=A, | (5.15) |
A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3=A, | (5.16) |
where A1∈Cm1×m2, P1∈Cm3×q1, B1∈Cq1×p1, Q1∈Cp1×m2, A2∈Cm3×m4, P2∈Cm5×q2, B2∈Cq2×p2, Q2∈Cp2×m4, A3∈Cm5×m6 and A∈Cm1×m6.
Theorem 5.5. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (5.13) holds for all B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2.
(b) A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)†A2(P2B2Q2)†A3=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 6 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iii) A=0 and A3=0.
(iv) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).
(v) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).
(vi) r[−A0A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
Proof. Under the given assumptions, we obtain from (5.3) that A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3=A is equivalent to
A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3=A1(P1B1Q1)(1)A2(P2B2Q2)(1)A3=A. |
In this case, applying Theorem 4.1 to the matrix equality yields the results in (a), (b) and (c).
By a similar approach, we obtain the following three groups of results from Theorems 4.2 and 4.3.
Theorem 5.6. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (5.14) holds for all B(1,2,P2,Q2)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2.
(b) A1B(1,2,P2,Q2)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P2,Q2)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)†A2(P2B2Q2)†A3=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 7 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and B1=0.
(iii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iv) A=0 and A3=0.
(v) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).
(vi) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).
(vii) r[−A0A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
Theorem 5.7. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) Equation (5.16) holds for all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,2,P2,Q2)2.
(b) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,2,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)†A2(P2B2Q2)†A3=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 8 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and B1=0.
(iii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iv) A=0 and B2=0.
(v) A=0 and A3=0.
(vi) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).
(vii) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).
(viii) r[−A0A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
Finally, we present extensions of Theorems 4.4 and 4.7 to matrix equalities that involve mixed products of three weighted {1}- and {1,2}-inverses. Let
A1∈Cm1×m2, P1∈Cm3×q1, B1∈Cq1×p1, Q1∈Cp1×m2, A2∈Cm3×m4, | (5.17) |
P2∈Cm5×q2, B2∈Cq2×p2, Q2∈Cp2×m4, A3∈Cm5×m6, P3∈Cm7×q3, | (5.18) |
B3∈Cq3×p3, Q3∈Cp3×m6, A4∈Cm7×m8. | (5.19) |
Then, the matrix product A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,P3,Q3)3A4 is defined accordingly, and we have the following results.
Theorem 5.8. Given the matrices in (5.17)–(5.19) and A∈Cm1×m8, and assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1, B(1,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,P3,Q3)3 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,P3,Q3)3A4=A holds for all B(1,P1,Q1)1, B(1,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,P3,Q3)3.
(b) A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,P3,Q3)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1,P1,Q1)1, B(1,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,P3,Q3)3 and A1(P1B1Q1)†A2(P2B2Q2)†A3(P3B3Q3)†A4=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 10 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iii) A=0 and A3=0.
(iv) A=0 and A4=0.
(v) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).
(vi) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).
(vii) A=0 and r[0A3A4P3B3Q3]=r(B3).
(viii) A=0 and r[00A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
(ix) A=0 and r[00A20A3P2B2Q2A4P3B3Q30]=r[A3P2B2Q2P3B3Q30]=r(B2)+r(B3).
(x) r[A00A100A2P1B1Q10A3P2B2Q20A4P3B3Q300]=r[0A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20P3B3Q300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).
Theorem 5.9. Given the assumptions in (5.17)–(5.19) and A∈Cm1×m8, assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1, B(1,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,P3,Q3)3 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:
(a) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,2,P3,Q3)3A4=A holds for all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1, B(1,2,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,2,P3,Q3)3.
(b) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,2,P3,Q3)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1, B(1,2,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,2,P3,Q3)3 and A1(P1B1Q1)†A2(P2B2Q2)†A3(P3B3Q3)†A4=A holds.
(c) Any one of the following 13 conditions holds:
(i) A=0 and A1=0.
(ii) A=0 and B1=0.
(iii) A=0 and A2=0.
(iv) A=0 and B2=0.
(v) A=0 and A3=0.
(vi) A=0 and B3=0.
(vii) A=0 and A4=0.
(viii) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).
(ix) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).
(x) A=0 and r[0A3A4P3B3Q3]=r(B3).
(xi) A=0 and r[00A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).
(xii) A=0 and r[00A20A3P2B2Q2A4P3B3Q30]=r[A3P2B2Q2P3B3Q30]=r(B2)+r(B3).
(xiii) r[A00A100A2P1B1Q10A3P2B2Q20A4P3B3Q300]=r[0A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20P3B3Q300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).
There exist many concrete matrix equalities, as described in (1.5) and (1.6), that can be represented in the forms of (1.3) and (1.4). As an application, we consider in this section the following partitioned matrix:
M=[ABCD], |
where A∈Cm1×n1, B∈Cm1×n2, C∈Cm2×n1 and D∈Cm2×n2. Given such a partitioned matrix, we are able to construct a special matrix equality
[ABCD](i,…,j)=[A(i1,…,j1)C(i2,…,j2)B(i3,…,j3)D(i4,…,j4)] | (6.1) |
for the generalized inverses. Because generalized inverses of matrices are not necessarily unique, (6.1) can be divided into the following four cases:
{[ABCD](i,…,j)}∩{[A(i1,…,j1)C(i2,…,j2)B(i3,…,j3)D(i4,…,j4)]}≠∅,{[ABCD](i,…,j)}⊆{[A(i1,…,j1)C(i2,…,j2)B(i3,…,j3)D(i4,…,j4)]}, | (6.2) |
{[ABCD](i,…,j)}⊇{[A(i1,…,j1)C(i2,…,j2)B(i3,…,j3)D(i4,…,j4)]},{[ABCD](i,…,j)}={[A(i1,…,j1)C(i2,…,j2)B(i3,…,j3)D(i4,…,j4)]}. | (6.3) |
It is a tedious work to characterize these four matrix set relations for different choices of the generalized inverses. In what follows, we only consider a special case of the first matrix set inclusion in (6.3). By definition, the first matrix set inclusion in (6.3) holds for {1}-inverses of the matrices if and only if
[ABCD][A(1)C(1)B(1)D(1)][ABCD]=[ABCD] | (6.4) |
holds for all A(1), B(1), C(1) and D(1), which in turn can be represented in the form
P1A(1)Q1+P2B(1)Q1+P1C(1)Q2+P2D(1)Q2=M, | (6.5) |
where P1=[AC], P2=[BD], Q1=[A,B] and Q2=[C,D]. In this case, we are able to find from Theorem 3.6 the following result.
Theorem 6.1. Let Pi and Qi be as given in (6.5) and assume that Pi≠0 and Qi≠0 for i=1,2. Then, (6.4) holds for all A(1), B(1), C(1) and D(1) if and only if
r[A000Q10B00Q100C0Q2000DQ2P1P2P1P2M]=r(A)+r(B)+r(C)+r(D), |
or equivalently,
r[ABA0C0CDAB0B0DCD]=r(A)+r(B)+r(C)+r(D)−r(M). |
We investigated the two sorts of general matrix equalities in (1.3) and (1.4) that involve ordinary sum and product operations of matrices and their generalized inverses, and we obtained a variety of necessary and sufficient conditions for them to hold. It can be seen that the corresponding results and facts are fairly easy to understand and utilize within the common discipline of matrix theory and generalized inverses of matrices since they were explicitly derived through various common algebraic calculations of matrices and their generalized inverses, as well as the skillful employments of the elementary but powerful BMRM and MRM.
In addition to the work related to {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices, it would be of interest to consider other {i,…,j}-generalized inverses of the matrices in the two matrix equalities in (1.3) and (1.4); yet, it is not difficult to see that we can easily extend them by induction to general matrix equalities through certain special block matrices that are constructed from the given matrices in the equalities. Finally, we conclude that this study will reveal numerous novel and intrinsic properties and performances of matrix expressions and matrix equalities that are encountered in the theory of generalized inverses. We also believe that these results and facts will provide enough supports to approach various concrete matrix equality problems from theoretical and applied points of view.
The author declares that he has not used artificial intelligence tools in the creation of this article.
The author would like to express his sincere thanks to the handling editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Z. Y. Tao, Y. M. Wang, M. Sanaye, J. A. Moore, C. Zou, Experimental study of train-induced vibration in over-track buildings in a metro depot, Eng. Struct., 198 (2019), 109473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109473 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109473
![]() |
[2] |
Z. Y. Tao, J. A. Moore, M. Sanaye, Y. M. Wang, C. Zou, Train-induced floor vibration and structure-borne noise predictions in a low-rise over-track building, Eng. Struct., 255 (2022), 113914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113914 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113914
![]() |
[3] |
C. Zou, Y. M. Wang, P. Wang, J. X. Guo, Measurement of ground and nearby building vibration and noise induced by trains in a metro depot, Sci. Total Environ., 536 (2015), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.123 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.123
![]() |
[4] |
C. Zou, Y. M. Wang, J. A. Moore, M. Sanayei, Train-induced field vibration measurements of ground and over-track buildings, Sci. Total Environ., 575 (2017), 1339–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.216 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.216
![]() |
[5] |
P. Tassi, O. Rohmer, S. Schimchowitsch, A. Eschenlauer, A. Bonnefond, F. Margiocchi, et al., Living alongside railway tracks: Long-term effects of nocturnal noise on sleep and cardiovascular reactivity as a function of age, Environ. Int., 36 (2010), 683–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.05.001 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2010.05.001
![]() |
[6] |
D. Petri, G. Licitra, M. A. Vigotti, L. Fredianelli, Effects of exposure to road, railway, airport and recreational noise on blood pressure and hypertension, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18 (2021), 9145. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179145 doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179145
![]() |
[7] |
S. Sanok, M. Berger, U. Müller, M. Schmid, S. Weidenfeld, E. M. Elmenhorst, et al., Road traffic noise impacts sleep continuity in suburban residents: Exposure-response quantification of noise-induced awakenings from vehicle pass-bys at night, Sci. Total Environ., 817 (2022), 152594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152594 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152594
![]() |
[8] |
M. Shamsipour, N. Zaredar, M. R. Monazzam, Z. Namvar, S. Mohammadpour, Burden of diseases attributed to traffic noise in the metropolis of Tehran in 2017, Environ. Pollut., 301 (2022), 119042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119042 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119042
![]() |
[9] |
R. Rylander, Physiological aspects of noise-induced stress and annoyance, J. Sound Vib., 277 (2004), 471–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2004.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2004.03.008
![]() |
[10] |
G. Jigeer, W. M. Tao, Q. Q. Zhu, X. Y. Xu, Y. Zhao, H. D. Kan, et al., Association of residential noise exposure with maternal anxiety and depression in late pregnancy, Environ. Int., 168 (2022), 107473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107473 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107473
![]() |
[11] |
N. Roswall, O. Raaschou-Nielsen, S. S. Jensen, A. Tjønneland, M. Sørensen, Long-term exposure to residential railway and road traffic noise and risk for diabetes in a Danish cohort, Environ. Res., 160 (2018), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.008 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.008
![]() |
[12] |
M. Foraster, I. C. Eze, D. Vienneau, E. Schaffner, A. Jeong, H. Héritier, et al., Long-term exposure to transportation noise and its association with adiposity markers and development of obesity, Environ. Int., 121 (2018), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.057 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.057
![]() |
[13] |
Y. T. Cai, W. L. Zijlema, E. P. Sørgjerd, D. Doiron, K. D. Hoogh, S. Hodgson, et al., Impact of road traffic noise on obesity measures: Observational study of three European cohorts, Environ. Res., 191 (2020), 110013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110013 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110013
![]() |
[14] |
M. Sørensen, P. Lühdorf, M. Ketzel, Z. J. Andersen, A. Tjønneland, K. Overvad, et al., Combined effects of road traffic noise and ambient air pollution in relation to risk for stroke?, Environ. Res., 133 (2014), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.05.011 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.05.011
![]() |
[15] |
A. Pyko, N. Andersson, C. Eriksson, U. D. Faire, T. Lind, N. Mitkovskaya, et al., Long-term transportation noise exposure and incidence of ischaemic heart disease and stroke: a cohort study, Occup. Environ. Med., 76 (2019), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.EE9.0000609496.01738.ac doi: 10.1097/01.EE9.0000609496.01738.ac
![]() |
[16] |
J. Weuve, J. D'Souza, T. Beck, D. A. Evans, J. D. Kaufman, K. B. Rajan, et al., Long‐term community noise exposure in relation to dementia, cognition, and cognitive decline in older adults, Alzheimer's Dementia, 17 (2021), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12191 doi: 10.1002/alz.12191
![]() |
[17] |
C. B. Cai, Q. L. He, S. Y. Zhu, W. M. Zhai, M. Z. Wang, Dynamic interaction of suspension-type monorail vehicle and bridge: Numerical simulation and experiment, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 118 (2019), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.08.062 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.08.062
![]() |
[18] |
F. Q. Guo, K. Y. Chen, F. G. Gu, H. Wang, T. Wen, Reviews on current situation and development of straddle-type monorail tour transit system in China, J. Cent. South Univ. (Sci. Technol.), 52 (2021), 4540–4551. https://doi.org/10.11817/j.issn.1672-7207.2021.12.034 doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7207.2021.12.034
![]() |
[19] |
F. Bunn, P. H. T. Zannin, Assessment of railway noise in an urban setting, Appl. Acoust., 104 (2016), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.10.025 doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.10.025
![]() |
[20] |
W. J. Yang, J. Y. He, C. M. He, M. Cai, Evaluation of urban traffic noise pollution based on noise maps, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 87 (2020), 102516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102516 doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102516
![]() |
[21] |
A. Tombolato, F. Bonomini, A. D. Bella, Methodology for the evaluation of low-frequency environmental noise: a case-study, Appl. Acoust., 187 (2022), 108517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108517 doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108517
![]() |
[22] |
L. P. S. Fernández, Environmental noise indicators and acoustic indexes based on fuzzy modelling for urban spaces, Ecol. Indic., 126 (2021), 107631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107631 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107631
![]() |
[23] |
R. H. Liang, W. F. Liu, W. B. Li, Z. Z. Wu, A traffic noise source identification method for buildings adjacent to multiple transport infrastructures based on deep learning, Build. Environ., 211 (2022), 108764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108764 doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108764
![]() |
[24] |
H. Di, X. P. Liu, J. Q. Zhang, Z. J. Tong, M. C. Ji, F. X. Li, et al., Estimation of the quality of an urban acoustic environment based on traffic noise evaluation models, Appl. Acoust., 141 (2018), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.07.010
![]() |
[25] |
T. Y. Chang, C. H. Liang, C. F. Wu, L. T. Chang, Application of land-use regression models to estimate sound pressure levels and frequency components of road traffic noise in Taichung, Taiwan, Environ. Int., 131 (2019), 104959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104959 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.104959
![]() |
[26] |
H. B. Wang, Z. Y. Wu, J. C. Chen, L. Chen, Evaluation of road traffic noise exposure considering differential crowd characteristics, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 105 (2022), 103250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103250 doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2022.103250
![]() |
[27] |
T. Morihara, S. Yokoshima, Y. Matsumoto, Effects of noise and vibration due to the Hokuriku Shinkansen railway on the living environment: A socio-acoustic survey one year after the opening, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18 (2021), 7794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157794 doi: 10.3390/ijerph18157794
![]() |
[28] |
L. Zhang, H. Ma, Investigation of Chinese residents' community response to high-speed railway noise, Appl. Acoust., 172 (2021), 107615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107615 doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107615
![]() |
[29] |
D. S. Michaud, L. Marro, A. Denning, S. Shackleton, N. Toutant, J. P. McNamee, Annoyance toward transportation and construction noise in rural suburban and urban regions across Canada, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 97 (2022), 106881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106881 doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106881
![]() |
[30] |
G. Licitra, L. Fredianelli, D. Petri, M. A. Vigotti, Annoyance evaluation due to overall railway noise and vibration in Pisa urban areas, Sci. Total Environ., 568 (2016), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.071 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.071
![]() |
[31] |
H. Xie, H. Li, C. Liu, M. Y. Li, J. W. Zou, Noise exposure of residential areas along LRT lines in a mountainous city, Sci. Total Environ., 568 (2016), 1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.097 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.097
![]() |
[32] | Environmental Quality Standard for Noise, China Environment Science Press, 2008, GB 3096-2008. |
[33] | Technical Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment—Urban Rail Transit, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China, (2018), HJ 453-2018. |
[34] |
L. Li, T. F. Yin, Q. Zhu, Y. Y. Luo, Characteristics and energies in different frequency bands of environmental noise in urban elevated rail, J. Traffic Transp. Eng., 18 (2018), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2018.02.013 doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2018.02.013
![]() |
[35] |
U. Landström, E. Åkerlund, A. Kjellberg, M. Tesarz, Exposure levels, tonal components, and noise annoyance in working environments, Environ. Int., 21 (1995), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(95)00017-F doi: 10.1016/0160-4120(95)00017-F
![]() |
[36] |
T. Alvares-Sanches, P. E. Osborne, P. R. White, Mobile surveys and machine learning can improve urban noise mapping: Beyond A-weighted measurements of exposure, Sci. Total Environ., 775 (2021), 145600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145600 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145600
![]() |
[37] |
M. Lefèvre, A. Chaumond, P. Champelovier, L. G. Allemand, J. Lambert, B. Laumon, et al., Understanding the relationship between air traffic noise exposure and annoyance in populations living near airports in France, Environ. Int., 144 (2020), 106058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106058 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106058
![]() |
[38] |
W. J. Yin, Z. F. Ming, Electric vehicle charging and discharging scheduling strategy based on local search and competitive learning particle swarm optimization algorithm, J. Energy Storage, 42 (2021), 102966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.102966 doi: 10.1016/j.est.2021.102966
![]() |
[39] | T. L. Saaty, L. G. Vargas, The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process, in Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Springer US, Boston, MA, 175 (2012), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6_2 |
[40] |
J. A. Alves, F. N. Paiva, L. T. Silva, P. Remoaldo, Low-frequency noise and its main effects on human health—A review of the literature between 2016 and 2019, Appl. Sci., 10 (2020), 5205. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155205 doi: 10.3390/app10155205
![]() |
[41] |
Y. Inukai, H. Taya, S. Yamada, Thresholds and acceptability of low frequency pure tones by sufferers, J. Low Freq. Noise Vibr. Act. Control, 24 (2005), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1260/026309205775374433 doi: 10.1260/026309205775374433
![]() |
[42] |
E. Murphy, E. A. King, An assessment of residential exposure to environmental noise at a shipping port, Environ. Int., 63 (2014), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.11.001
![]() |
[43] |
B. Schäffer, M. Brink, F. Schlatter, D. Vienneau, J. M. Wunderli, Residential green is associated with reduced annoyance to road traffic and railway noise but increased annoyance to aircraft noise exposure, Environ. Int., 143 (2020), 105885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105885 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105885
![]() |
[44] |
K. Vogiatzis, P. Vanhonacker, Noise reduction in urban LRT networks by combining track based solutions, Sci. Total Environ., 68 (2016), 1344–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.060 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.060
![]() |
[45] |
F. Asdrubali, C. Buratti, Sound intensity investigation of the acoustics performances of high insulation ventilating windows integrated with rolling shutter boxes, Appl. Acoust., 66 (2005), 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2005.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2005.02.001
![]() |
[46] |
L. F. Du, S. K. Lau, S. E. Lee, M. K. Danzer, Experimental study on noise reduction and ventilation performances of sound-proofed ventilation window, Build. Environ., 181 (2020), 107105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107105 doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107105
![]() |