The breadth of Lie poset algebras

Abstract: The breadth of a Lie algebra $L$ is defined to be the maximal dimension of the image of $ad_x=[x,-]:L\to L$, for $x\in L$. Here, we initiate an investigation into the breadth of three families of Lie algebras defined by posets and provide combinatorial breadth formulas for members of each family.

\section{Introduction}

\textit{Convention:}  We assume throughout that all Lie algebras are over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, \textbf{k}, which we may take, without any loss of generality, to be the complex numbers.
\medskip

The complete classification of simple Lie algebras, elegantly couched in the language of root systems and Dynkin diagrams, stands in sharp contrast to the solvable case where the Lie algebras are classified only up to dimension six (see \textbf{\cite{Graaf}}). Recent efforts have concentrated on the seemingly more tractable nilpotent case, where the study of nilpotent Lie algebras and their invariants is of topical interest.

One such invariant is the ``breadth" of a Lie algebra $L$, which is defined to be the maximal dimension of the image of $ad_x=[x,-]:L\rightarrow L$ as $x$ runs through the elements of $L$. This Lie algebraic invariant was introduced by Leedham-Green, Neumann and Weigold (\textbf{\cite{Green}}, 1969). Some time later, Khuhirum et al. (\textbf{\cite{breadth1}}, 2014) characterized nilpotent Lie algebras of breadth one and two and  provided a full classification in breadth one.  In breadth two, they achieved a succinct classification only up to dimension six. This work was inspired by the recent interest in nilpotent Lie algebras and  analogous breadth work of Parmeggani and Stellmacher (\textbf{\cite{Parm}}, 1999) who gave a characterization of finite p-groups of breadth one and two.  (The breadth of a finite group is the cardinality of its largest conjugacy class). As a capstone to the work in \textbf{\cite{breadth1}}, Remm (\textbf{\cite{Remm}}, 2017) used characteristic sequences to complete, in particular, the classification of nilpotent Lie algebras of breadth two. Here, we initiate an investigation into the breadth of three families of Lie algebras defined by posets: Lie poset algebras, type-A Lie poset algebras, and nilpotent Lie poset algebras. The last two are subalgebras of the first, but only the last of these is nilpotent.

Lie poset algebras are solvable subalgebras of  $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$ and, despite their conspicuous definition, have only recently been introduced into the literature (see \textbf{\cite{CG}}). They arise naturally from the incidence algebras of posets (cf. \textbf{\cite{Ro}}) as follows.  For each poset $(\mathcal{P},\preceq_{\mathcal{P}})$ with $\mathcal{P}=\{1,\hdots,n\}$, one obtains a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ consisting of $|\mathcal{P}|\times|\mathcal{P}|$ matrices whose $i,j$-entry can be nonzero if and only if $i\preceq_{\mathcal{P}} j,$ and the Lie bracket of $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ is given by $[X,Y]=XY-YX$, where juxtaposition denotes standard matrix multiplication. Removing diagonal elements from $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ results in a nilpotent subalgebra of $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$ which, following \textbf{\cite{nilco}}, is denoted by $\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$ and referred to as a \textit{nilpotent Lie poset algebra.} The imposition of various algebraic conditions on the members of $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ yields Lie poset algebras of classical type. For example, if a vanishing trace condition is applied, one obtains a type-A Lie poset algebra, which we denote by $\mathfrak{g}_{A} (\mathcal{P})$. See \textbf{\cite{CM, nil, CG, nilco}}.

The paper is organized as follows. After establishing some preliminaries in Section 2, our main results are detailed in Section 3. Theorem~\ref{thm:first} establishes that the breadth of $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ and $\mathfrak{g}_{A}(\mathcal{P})$ is given by the number of relations in $\mathcal{P}$.  In Theorem~\ref{thm:breadthncov}, we consider three families of nilpotent Lie poset algebras (corresponding to chains, trees, and grids) to find that the breadth of a member algebra is simply the number of non-covering relations in the algebra's defining poset. In Theorems 3--6, we examine a three-parameter family of nilpotent Lie poset algebras, $\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P}(r_0,r_1,r_2))$, whose underlying posets have Hasse diagrams (see Section~\ref{sec:prelim}) which can be described as ``expanded double-fan'' graphs. See Figure~\ref{fig:Pnrm}. In contrast to previous examples, we show  that the breadth of such a nilpotent Lie poset algebra is generally not a function of the number and type of poset relations, but rather is an elementary function of its parameters.  Consequently, we can generate algebras of arbitrarily high dimension with any desired positive breadth.

\begin{figure}[H]
$$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
\def\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt]{\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt]}
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (1) at (0,0){};
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (2) at (1,0){};
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (3) at (2,0){};
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (4) at (3,0){};
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (5) at (1,1){};
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (6) at (2,1){};
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (7) at (0.5,2){};
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (8) at (1.5,2){};
\node [circle, fill, inner sep=1.5pt] (9) at (2.5,2){};

\draw (1)--(5)--(7);
\draw (1)--(6)--(7);
\draw (2)--(5)--(8);
\draw (2)--(6)--(8);
\draw (3)--(5);
\draw (3)--(6);
\draw (4)--(5);
\draw (4)--(6);
\draw (5)--(9);
\draw (6)--(9);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
    \caption{Hasse diagram of the poset $\mathcal{P}(4,2,3)$}
    \label{fig:Pnrm}
\end{figure}

\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}

A \textit{finite poset} $(\mathcal{P}, \preceq_{\mathcal{P}})$ consists of a finite set $\mathcal{P}=\{1,\hdots,n\}$ together with a binary relation $\preceq_{\mathcal{P}}$ on $\mathcal{P}$ which is reflexive, anti-symmetric, and transitive. We tacitly assume that if $x\preceq_{\mathcal{P}}y$ for $x,y\in\mathcal{P}$, then $x\le y$, where $\le$ denotes the natural ordering on $\mathbb{Z}$. When no confusion will arise, we simply denote a poset $(\mathcal{P}, \preceq_{\mathcal{P}})$ by $\mathcal{P}$, and $\preceq_{\mathcal{P}}$ by $\preceq$.

Let $x,y\in\mathcal{P}$. If $x\preceq y$ and $x\neq y$, then we call $x\preceq y$ a \textit{strict relation} and write $x\prec y$. Let $Rel(\mathcal{P})$ denote the set of strict relations between elements of $\mathcal{P}$, $Ext(\mathcal{P})$ denote the set of minimal and maximal elements of $\mathcal{P}$, and $Rel_E(\mathcal{P})$ denote the set of strict relations between the elements of $Ext(\mathcal{P})$.

\begin{Ex}\label{ex:stargate}
Consider the poset $\mathcal{P}=\{1,2,3,4\}$ with $1\prec2\prec3,4$.  We then have $$Rel(\mathcal{P})=\{1\prec 2,1\prec 3,1\prec 4,2\prec 3,2\prec 4\},$$  $$Ext(\mathcal{P})=\{1,3,4\},\quad \text{and}\quad Rel_E(\mathcal{P})=\{1\prec 3, 1\prec 4\}.$$
\end{Ex}

\noindent
Recall that, if $x\prec y$ and there exists no $z\in \mathcal{P}$ satisfying $x\prec z\prec y$, then $y$ \textit{covers} $x$ and $x\prec y$ is a \textit{covering relation}.  Using this language, the \textit{Hasse diagram} of a poset $\mathcal{P}$ can be reckoned as the graph whose vertices correspond to elements of $\mathcal{P}$ and whose edges correspond to covering relations.

\begin{Ex}
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the poset of Example~\ref{ex:stargate}. The Hasse diagram of $\mathcal{P}$ is given in Figure~\ref{fig:Hasse} below.
\begin{figure}[H]
$$\begin{tikzpicture}
	\node (1) at (0, 0) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=left:{1}]{};
	\node (2) at (0, 1)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=left:{2}] {};
	\node (3) at (-0.5, 2) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=left:{3}] {};
	\node (4) at (0.5, 2) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=right:{4}] {};
    \draw (1)--(2);
    \draw (2)--(3);
    \draw (2)--(4);
    \addvmargin{1mm}
\end{tikzpicture}$$
\caption{Hasse diagram of $\mathcal{P}$, for $\mathcal{P}=\{1,2,3,4\}$ with $1\prec 2\prec 3,4$}\label{fig:Hasse}
\end{figure}
\end{Ex}

\noindent
Ongoing, the collection of non-covering relations of a poset $\mathcal{P}$ will prove important. So, let $$Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})=\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\text{ is not a covering relation of }\mathcal{P}\}$$ and for $p\in\mathcal{P}$, let $$Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P},p)=\{q\prec r\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})~|~q=p\text{ or }r=p\}.$$

The following families of posets will be of interest in the sections that follow.

\begin{definition}
Let $C_n$ denote the chain on $n$ elements; that is, the poset on the set $\{1,\hdots,n\}$ where  $$1\prec 2\prec\hdots\prec n.$$
\end{definition}

\begin{remark}
For the families of posets defined in Definitions~\ref{def:grid},~\ref{def:tree}, and~\ref{def:comppos}, it is possible to give definitions in which the underlying set of the posets consist of integers $\{1,\hdots,n\}$, but it is more convenient to use an alternative labeling of the elements.
\end{remark}

\begin{definition}\label{def:grid}
Let $\mathbf{m\times n}$ denote the poset on the set $\{1_1,\hdots,n_1,\hdots,1_m,\hdots,n_m\}$ where $i_j\prec i_{j+1},(i+1)_j$, for $1\leq i\leq n-1$ and $1\leq j\leq m-1$, $n_j\prec n_{j+1}$ , for $1\le j\le m-1$, and $i_m\prec (i+1)_m$, for $1\le i\le n-1$.
\end{definition}

\begin{figure}[H]
$$\begin{tikzpicture}
	\node (1) at (0, 0) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=below:{$1_1$}]{};
	\node (2) at (-0.5, 0.5)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=left:{$1_2$}] {};
	\node (3) at (0.5, 0.5) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=right:{$2_1$}] {};
	\node (4) at (0, 1) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=left:{$2_2$}] {};
	\node (5) at (1, 1) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=right:{$3_1$}] {};
	\node (6) at (0.5, 1.5) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=left:{$3_2$}] {};
	\node (7) at (1.5, 1.5) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=right:{$4_1$}] {};
	\node (8) at (1, 2) [circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=above:{$4_2$}] {};
    \draw (1)--(2)--(4);
    \draw (1)--(3)--(4);
    \draw (4)--(6)--(8);
    \draw (3)--(5)--(6);
    \draw (5)--(7)--(8);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
\caption{Hasse diagram of $\mathbf{2\times 4}$}
\end{figure}

\begin{definition}\label{def:tree}
For $1<m$, let $T_m(n)$ denote the poset on $\{1_1,1_2,2_2,\hdots,m_2,\hdots,1_n,\hdots,m^{n-1}_n\}$ where \\* $i_k\prec (mi-j)_{k+1}$, for $1\le k<n$, $1\le i\le 2^{k-1}$, and  $0\le j<m$.
\end{definition}

\begin{figure}[H]
$$\begin{tikzpicture}
	\node (1) at (0, 0) {};
	\node (2) at (0, 0.25)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=below:{$1_1$}] {};
	\node (3) at (-0.75, 1.25)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=left:{$1_2$}] {};
	\node (4) at (0.75, 1.25)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=right:{$2_2$}] {};
	\node (5) at (-1.25, 2)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=above:{$1_3$}] {};
	\node (6) at (-0.25, 2)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=above:{$2_3$}] {};
	\node (7) at (0.25, 2)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=above:{$3_3$}] {};
	\node (8) at (1.25, 2)[circle, draw = black, fill = black, inner sep = 0.5mm, label=above:{$4_3$}] {};
	\node (9) at (1, 2) {};
	\draw (3)--(2)--(4);
	\draw (5)--(3)--(6);
	\draw (8)--(4)--(7);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
\caption{Hasse diagram of $T_2(3)$}
\end{figure}

\begin{definition}\label{def:comppos}
Let $\mathcal{P}(r_0, r_1, r_2)$ denote the poset on $\{b_1,\hdots,b_{r_0},m_1,\hdots,m_{r_1},t_1,\hdots,t_{r_2}\}$ with $$b_1,\hdots,b_{r_0}\prec m_1,\hdots,m_{r_1}\prec t_1,\hdots, t_{r_2}.$$
\end{definition}

\begin{Ex}
Using the notation of Definition~\ref{def:comppos}, the poset of Example~\ref{ex:stargate} is $\mathcal{P}(1,1,2)$.
\end{Ex}

Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a finite poset. The (associative) \textit{incidence algebra} $A(\mathcal{P})=A(\mathcal{P}, \textbf{k})$ is the span over $\textbf{k}$ of elements $e_{i,j}$, for $i,j\in\mathcal{P}$ satisfying $i\preceq j$, with product given by setting $e_{i,j}e_{kl}=e_{i,l}$ if $j=k$ and $0$ otherwise. The \textit{trace} of an element $\sum c_{i,j}e_{i,j}$ is $\sum c_{i,i}.$

We can equip $A(\mathcal{P})$ with the commutator product $[a,b]=ab-ba$, where juxtaposition denotes the product in $A(\mathcal{P})$, to produce the \textit{Lie poset algebra} $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})=\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P}, \textbf{k})$. If $|\mathcal{P}|=n$, then both $A(\mathcal{P})$ and $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ may be regarded as subalgebras of the algebra of $n \times n$ upper-triangular matrices over $\textbf{k}$. Such a matrix representation is realized by replacing each basis element $e_{i,j}$ by the $n\times n$ matrix $E_{i,j}$ containing a 1 in the $i,j$-entry and 0's elsewhere. The (associative) product between elements $e_{i,j}$ is then replaced by matrix multiplication between the $E_{i,j}$.

\begin{Ex}\label{ex:posetmat}
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the poset of Example~\ref{ex:stargate}. The matrix form of elements in $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:tA}, where the $*$'s denote potential non-zero entries from \textup{\textbf{k}}.
\begin{figure}[H]
$$\kbordermatrix{
    & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4  \\
   1 & * & * & * & *   \\
   2 & 0 & * & * & *  \\
   3 & 0 & 0 & * & 0  \\
   4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & *  \\
  }$$
\caption{Matrix form defining $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$, for $\mathcal{P}=\{1,2,3,4\}$ with $1\prec 2\prec 3,4$}\label{fig:tA}
\end{figure}
\end{Ex}

\noindent
Restricting $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ to trace-zero matrices yields a subalgebra of the first classical family $A_{n-1}=\mathfrak{sl}(n)$ which we refer to as a \textit{type-A Lie poset algebra} and denote by $\mathfrak{g}_A(\mathcal{P})$. Restricting $\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ to strictly upper-triangular matrices yields a subalgebra which we refer to as a \textit{nilpotent Lie poset algebra} and denote by $\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$.

\section{Results}
We begin this section with the formal definition of the breadth of a Lie algebra.

\begin{definition}
The \text{breadth} of a Lie algebra $L$ is the invariant
$$
b(L)=\max_{x\in L}~\textup{rank}(ad_x).
$$
\end{definition}

The following breadth bound results will be useful in what follows, and the proofs can be found in \textbf{\cite{dissertation}}.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ub} If $L$ is a Lie algebra with center $Z(L)$ and derived algebra $[L,L]$, then
\begin{enumerate}[\textup(i\textup)]
    \item $b(L)\le \dim(L/ Z(L))-1$, and
    \item $b(L)\le \dim([L,L])$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\subsection{(Type-A) Lie poset algebras}

To determine an analogue of Proposition~\ref{prop:ub}(\textit{i}) for (type-A) Lie poset algebras we make use of the following proposition.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:derivlp}
If $\mathcal{P}$ is a poset and $L=\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ or $\mathfrak{g}_A(\mathcal{P})$, then $\dim([L,L])=|Rel(\mathcal{P})|$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We claim that $$[L,L]=\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\}.$$ To begin, note that if $L=\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$, then a basis for $L$ is given by $$\mathscr{B}=\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\}\cup \{E_{p,p}~|~p\in\mathcal{P}\}.$$ On the other hand, if $L=\mathfrak{g}_A(\mathcal{P})$, then a basis for $L$ is given by
$$\mathscr{B}=\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\}\cup \{E_{1,1}-E_{p,p}~|~p\in\mathcal{P},1\neq p\}.$$ Since $$[E_{p_1,q_1},E_{p_2,q_2}]=\delta_{q_1,p_2}E_{p_1,q_2}-\delta_{p_1,q_2}E_{p_2,q_1}\in [L,L],$$ $$[E_{p_1,p_1},E_{p_2,q_2}]=\delta_{p_1,p_2}E_{p_1,q_2}-\delta_{p_1,q_2}E_{p_2,p_1}\in [L,L],$$ and $$[E_{p_1,p_1}-E_{q_1,q_1},E_{p_2,q_2}]=\delta_{p_1,p_2}E_{p_1,q_2}-\delta_{p_1,q_2}E_{p_2,p_1}-\delta_{q_1,p_2}E_{q_1,q_2}+\delta_{q_1,q_2}E_{p_2,q_1}\in [L,L],$$
for $p_1,q_1,p_2,q_2\in\mathcal{P}$, and $[L,L]$ is spanned by $\{[b_1,b_2]~|~b_1,b_2\in \mathscr{B}\},$ it follows that $$\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\}\supseteq [L,L].$$ Now, if $p,q\in\mathcal{P}$ satisfy $p\prec q$, then $\frac{1}{2}(E_{p,p}-E_{q,q}), E_{p,q}\in L$ and $$\left[\frac{1}{2}(E_{p,p}-E_{q,q}), E_{p,q}\right]=E_{p,q}\in [L,L].$$ Thus, $$\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\}\subseteq [L,L]$$ and the claim is established. As $\dim(\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\})=|Rel(\mathcal{P})|$, the result follows.
\end{proof}

As a consequence of Propositions~\ref{prop:ub}(\textit{i}) and~\ref{prop:derivlp}, we obtain the following analogue of Proposition~\ref{prop:ub}(\textit{i}) for (type-A) Lie poset algebras.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ublpa1}
If $\mathcal{P}$ is a poset and $L=\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ or $\mathfrak{g}_A(\mathcal{P})$, then $b(L)\le |Rel(\mathcal{P})|$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:first}
If $\mathcal{P}$ is a poset and $L=\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P})$ or $\mathfrak{g}_A(\mathcal{P})$, then $$b(L)=|Rel(\mathcal{P})|.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Considering Proposition~\ref{prop:ublpa1}, it suffices to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:thmfirst}
    |Rel(\mathcal{P})|\le b(L).
\end{equation}
To establish (\ref{eqn:thmfirst}), we construct $x\in L$ satisfying $E_{p,q}\in \text{im}(ad_x)$, for all $p,q\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $p\prec q$. Consider $$x=\sum_{1\neq i\in\mathcal{P}}i(E_{1,1}-E_{i,i})\in L.$$ Note that $$[x,E_{1,p}]=\left(p+\sum_{1\neq i\in\mathcal{P}}i\right)E_{1,p}\neq 0,$$ for all $p\neq 1$ satisfying $1\prec p$, and $$[x,E_{p,q}]=(q-p)E_{p,q}\neq 0,$$ for all $p,q\in\mathcal{P}$ satisfying $p\neq 1$ and $p\prec q$. Thus, $$\text{im}(ad_x)\supset\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\}$$ and $$|Rel(\mathcal{P})|=\dim(\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\})\le \textup{rank}(ad_x)\le b(L).$$ The result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{Ex} If $\mathcal{P}$ is the poset of Example~\ref{ex:stargate}, i.e., $\mathcal{P}=\{1,2,3,4\}$ with $1\prec 2\prec 3,4$, then $$b(\mathfrak{g}(\mathcal{P}))=b(\mathfrak{g}_A(\mathcal{P}))=|Rel(\mathcal{P})|=5.$$

\end{Ex}

\subsection{Nilpotent Lie poset algebras}

To determine an analogue of Propositions~\ref{prop:ub}(\textit{i}) and (\textit{ii}) for nilpotent Lie poset algebras we make use of the following proposition.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:derivnil}
If $\mathcal{P}$ is a poset and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[\textup(i\textup)] $\dim(L/ Z(L))= |\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\notin Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}|$, and
    \item[\textup(ii\textup)] $\dim([L,L])=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(\textit{i}) We claim that $$Z(L)=\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}.$$ Evidently, $E_{p,q}\in Z(L)$, for $p\prec q\in Rel_E(\mathcal{P})$. Take $z=\sum_{i\prec j}z_{i,j}E_{i,j}\in Z(L)$. If $p,q\in\mathcal{P}$ satisfy $p\prec q$ with $q$ non-maximal, then there exists $r\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $q\prec r$ and $$[z,E_{q,r}]=\sum_{k\prec q}z_{k,q}E_{k,r}-\sum_{r\prec k}z_{r,k}E_{q,k}=0;$$ that is, $z_{p,q}=0$. If $p,q\in\mathcal{P}$ satisfy $p\prec q$ with $p$ non-minimal, then there exists $r\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $r\prec p$ and $$[z,E_{r,p}]=\sum_{k\prec r}z_{k,r}E_{k,p}-\sum_{p\prec k}z_{p,k}E_{r,k}=0;$$ that is, $z_{p,q}=0$. Therefore, $z_{p,q}=0$, for all $p,q\in \mathcal{P}$ such that $p\prec q$ and either $p$ is non-minimal or $q$ is non-maximal. This establishes the claim. Hence, $$L/ Z(L)=\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\}/\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}$$ $$=\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\notin Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}.$$ As $\dim(\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\notin Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\})=|\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\notin Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}|$, the result follows.
\bigskip

(\textit{ii}) We claim that $$[L,L]=\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}.$$ If $p,q\in\mathcal{P}$ and $p\prec q$ is not a covering relation, then there exists $r\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $p\prec r\prec q$ and $$[E_{p,r},E_{r,q}]=E_{p,q}\in [L,L];$$ that is, $$\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}\subseteq [L,L].$$  Now, since $[L,L]$ is generated by the $[E_{p_1,q_1},E_{p_2,q_2}]$, for $p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $p_1\prec q_1$ and $p_2\prec q_2$, and $[E_{p_1,q_1},E_{p_2,q_2}]=\delta_{q_1,p_2}E_{p_1,q_2}-\delta_{p_1,q_2}E_{p_2,q_1}$, it follows that elements $x\in [L,L]$ must be of the form $$x=\sum_{p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})}a_{p,q}E_{p,q};$$ that is, $$[L,L]\subseteq\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}.$$ This establishes the claim. As $\dim(\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\})=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$, the result follows.
\end{proof}

As a consequence of Propositions~\ref{prop:ub} and~\ref{prop:derivnil} we obtain the following analogue of Proposition~\ref{prop:ub} for nilpotent Lie poset algebras.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ubnil}
If $\mathcal{P}$ is a poset and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[\textup(i\textup)] $b(L)\le |\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\notin Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}|-1$.
    \item[\textup(ii\textup)] $b(L)\le |Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

The following Theorem provides exact breadth values for nilpotent Lie poset algebras corresponding to the posets $C_n,$ $\mathbf{2\times n},$ and $T_m(n).$ In each case, the breadth of the respective algebra is equal to the number of non-covering relations in the associated poset $\mathcal{P}$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:breadthncov}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[\textup{(a)}] If $\mathcal{P}=C_n$ and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then $$b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}.$$
    \item[\textup{(b)}] If $\mathcal{P}=\mathbf{2\times n}$ and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then $$b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-1)(3n-4)}{2}.$$
    \item[\textup{(c)}] If $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}=T_m(n)$ and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then $$b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-2)m^{n+1}+(1-n)m^n+m^2}{(m-1)^2}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will prove part (a). The proofs of parts (b) and (c) are relegated to an appendix.

First, we show that $b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$. Considering Proposition~\ref{prop:ubnil}(ii) it suffices to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:second}
    |Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|\le b(L).
\end{equation}
To establish (\ref{eqn:second}), we construct $x\in L$ satisfying $E_{p,q}\in \text{im}(ad_x)$, for all $p,q\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$. Consider $$x=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}E_{i,i+1}.$$ If $1\prec p$ is not a covering relation, then $1\prec p-1\prec p$ and $$[x,-E_{1,p-1}]=E_{1,p}\in\text{im}(ad_x).$$ If $1<p\prec q$ is not a covering relation, then $p\prec q-1\prec q$ and $$\left[x, -\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}E_{p-i,q-1-i}\right]=\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}E_{p-i,q-i}-\sum_{j=0}^{p-2}E_{p-j-1,q-1-j}=\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}E_{p-i,q-i}-\sum_{j=1}^{p-1}E_{p-j,q-j}=E_{p,q}\in \text{im}(ad_x).$$ Thus, $$\text{im}(ad_x)\supset\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}$$ and $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\dim(\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\})\le \textup{rank}(ad_x)\le b(L).$$ It follows that $b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$.

Now, we show that $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}.$$ For $p\in\{1,\hdots,n-1\}$ there are $n-p-1$ elements $q\in\mathcal{P}$ such that $p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$. Thus, $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\sum_{p=1}^{n-1}n-p-1=\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}i=\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}.$$
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
It appears that Theorem~\ref{thm:breadthncov} \textup{(}b\textup{)} holds more generally; that is, if $\mathcal{P}=\mathbf{m\times n}$ and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then $b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$. We conjecture that this is so.
\end{remark}

It is important to note that the breadth of $\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$ is not always given by $|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$. In what follows, we show that for the family of posets $\mathcal{P}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$ the breadth of the corresponding nilpotent Lie poset algebra can be given by either of the upper bounds established in Propositions~\ref{prop:ubnil}(\textit{i}) and \ref{prop:ubnil}(\textit{ii}) and can also be strictly less than both.

\begin{remark}
If $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(1,n,1)$, then $\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$ is a generalized Heisenberg Lie algebra.
\end{remark}

Recall from Definition~\ref{def:comppos} that $\mathcal{P}(r_0,r_1,r_2)=\{b_1,\hdots,b_{r_0},m_1,\hdots,m_{r_1},t_1,\hdots,t_{r_2}\}$ with $$b_1,\hdots,b_{r_0}\prec m_1,\hdots,m_{r_1}\prec t_1,\hdots, t_{r_2}.$$ Set $\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P}(r_0,r_1,r_2))$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:pnrme}
If $L=\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$ with $r_1\ge r_0$ or $r_1\ge r_2$, then $b(L)=r_0r_2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$. We assume that $r_1\ge r_0$, the other case following via a symmetric argument. Note that $$Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})=Rel_E(\mathcal{P})=\{b_i\prec t_j~|~1\le i\le r_0,1\le j\le r_2\}$$ from which it follows $$\dim([L,L])=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=r_0r_2.$$ Thus, to establish the result, it suffices to construct $x\in L$ such that $E_{p,q}\in \text{im}(ad_x)$, for all $p\prec q\in Rel_E(\mathcal{P})$. Consider $x=\sum_{i=1}^{r_0}E_{b_i,m_i}$. Since $$[x, E_{m_i, t_j}]=E_{b_i,t_j}\in\text{im}(ad_x),$$ for $1\le i\le r_0$ and $1\le j\le r_2$, it follows that the given $x\in L$ has the desired properties. Therefore, $$\text{im}(ad_x)\supset\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}$$ and $$r_0r_2=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\dim(\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\})\le \textup{rank}(ad_x)\le b(L).$$ The result follows.
\end{proof}

To determine a formula for $b(\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2))$ when $r_1<r_0,r_2$, we study the matrix of $ad_x$, denoted $M_x$, for a general element $x\in\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$.

Note that a basis $\mathscr{B}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$ of $\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$ is given by $$\{E_{b_i,m_j}~|~1\le i\le r_0,~1\le j\le r_1\}\cup \{E_{m_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_1,~1\le j\le r_2\}\cup \{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_0,~1\le j\le r_2\}.$$ Thus, every element of  $\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$ can be written as $$x=\sum_{g=1}^{r_0}\sum_{h=1}^{r_1}a_{b_g,m_h}E_{b_g,m_h}+\sum_{i=1}^{r_1}\sum_{j=1}^{r_2}a_{m_i,t_j}E_{m_i,t_j}+\sum_{k=1}^{r_0}\sum_{l=1}^{r_2}a_{b_k,t_l}E_{b_k,t_l}.$$ To study $M_x$, it will be helpful to partition $\mathscr{B}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$ into three ordered subsets:
\begin{itemize}
    \item $B_1=\{E_{b_1,m_1},E_{b_2,m_1},\hdots,E_{b_{r_0},m_1},\hdots, E_{b_1,m_{r_1}},E_{b_2,m_{r_1}},\hdots,E_{b_{r_0},m_{r_1}}\}$
    \item $B_2=\{E_{m_1,t_1},E_{m_2,t_1},\hdots,E_{m_{r_1},t_1},\hdots, E_{m_1,t_{r_2}},E_{m_2,t_{r_2}},\hdots,E_{m_{r_1},t_{r_2}}\}$
    \item $B_3=\{E_{b_1,t_1},E_{b_2,t_1},\hdots,E_{b_{r_0},t_1},\hdots, E_{b_1,t_{r_2}},E_{b_2,t_{r_2}},\hdots,E_{b_{r_0},t_{r_2}}\}.$
\end{itemize}
Ordering the columns of $M_x$ as $B_1,B_2,B_3$ and the rows as $B_3,B_2,B_1$, the matrix has the following form:

\begin{figure}[H]
$$\kbordermatrix{
    &  &  &  &   \\
    & -a_{m_1,t_1}I_{r_0} & -a_{m_2,t_1}I_{r_0} & \hdots & -a_{m_{r_1},t_1}I_{r_0} & A & 0  & \hdots & 0 & 0   \\
    & -a_{m_1,t_2}I_{r_0} & -a_{m_2,t_2}I_{r_0} & \hdots & -a_{m_{r_1},t_2}I_{r_0} & 0 & A  & \hdots & 0 & 0  \\
    & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots  \\
    & -a_{m_1,t_{r_2}}I_{r_0} & -a_{m_2,t_{r_2}}I_{r_0} & \hdots & -a_{m_{r_1},t_{r_2}}I_{r_0} & 0 & 0 &  \hdots & A & 0  \\
    & 0 & 0 & \hdots & 0 & 0 & 0 &  \hdots & 0 & 0  \\
  }$$
\caption{$M_x$}
\end{figure}

\noindent
where $I_{r_0}$ is the $r_0\times r_0$ identity matrix and

\begin{figure}[H]
$$A=\kbordermatrix{
    &  &  &  &   \\
    & a_{b_1,m_1} & a_{b_1,m_2} & \hdots & a_{b_1,m_{r_1}}  \\
    & a_{b_2,m_1} & a_{b_2,m_2} & \hdots & a_{b_2,m_{r_1}}  \\
    & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots   \\
    & a_{b_{r_0},m_1} & a_{b_{r_0},m_2} & \hdots & a_{b_{r_0},m_{r_1}}  \\
  }$$
\caption{Matrix form of $A$}
\end{figure}

Focusing on the section of the matrix $M_x$ corresponding to columns $B_1$, illustrated below,

\begin{figure}[H]
$$\kbordermatrix{
    &  &  &  &   \\
    & -a_{m_1,t_1}I_{r_0} & -a_{m_2,t_1}I_{r_0} & \hdots & -a_{m_{r_1},t_1}I_{r_0}   \\
    & -a_{m_1,t_2}I_{r_0} & -a_{m_2,t_2}I_{r_0} & \hdots & -a_{m_{r_1},t_2}I_{r_0}  \\
    & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots  \\
    & -a_{m_1,t_{r_2}}I_{r_0} & -a_{m_2,t_{r_2}}I_{r_0} & \hdots & -a_{m_{r_1},t_{r_2}}I_{r_0}   \\
    & 0 & 0 & \hdots & 0   \\
  }$$
\caption{Restriction of $M_x$ to columns $B_1$}
\end{figure}

\noindent
it is clear that the matrix $M_x$ can be row reduced in such a way that there are $sr_0$ rows with a nonzero entry in a unique column in $B_3$, for $0\le s\le r_1$, and the remaining rows contain zeros in the columns of $B_3$. Further, such a row reduction can be accomplished by performing block row operations, where the row labeled by $E_{b_i,t_j}$ is multiplied by a constant $c$ and added to the row labeled by $E_{b_i,t_j}$, for some $1\le j\neq k\le r_2$ and for all $1\le i\le r_0$.

Having performed the described block row operations, the remaining $(r_2-s)$ blocks of nonzero rows of $M_x$ labeled by elements of the form $E_{b_i,t_j}$, for $1\le i\le r_0$ and fixed $j$, with entries of 0 in the columns of $B_1$ must be of the form

\begin{figure}[H]
$$\kbordermatrix{
    &   &  &  &  &  &  &  &  \\
    & 0  & \hdots & 0 & c_1 A & c_2A & \hdots & c_{r_2} A & 0  \\
  }$$
\caption{Remaining nonzero rows of $M_x$}
\end{figure}

\noindent
where $c_l\in \textup{\textbf{k}}$, for $1\le l\le r_2$. Such collections of rows can consist of at most $\text{rank}(A)\le r_1$ linearly independent rows. Therefore, we have that the rank of $M_x$ is bounded above by $$sr_0+r_1(r_2-s)=s(r_0-r_1)+r_1r_2,$$ for $0\le s\le r_1$; that is, we are led to the following Theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:pnrmub}
If $L=\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$ with $r_1<r_0,r_2$, then $$b(L)\le r_1(r_0-r_1)+r_1r_2=r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1).$$
\end{theorem}

\noindent
In fact, the bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:pnrmub} is exact.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:pnrmc}
If $L=\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$ with $r_1<r_0,r_2$, then $$b(L)=r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Considering Theorem~\ref{thm:pnrmub}, it suffices to construct an element $x\in L$ for which $\text{rank}(ad_x)\ge r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1)$. Consider $$x=\sum_{i=1}^{r_1}(E_{b_i,m_i}-E_{m_i,t_i}).$$ Since $$[x, E_{m_i, t_j}]=E_{b_i, t_j}\in \text{im}(ad_x),$$ for $1\le i\le r_1$ and $1\le j\le r_2$, and $$[x, E_{b_i, m_j}]=-E_{b_i, t_j}\in \text{im}(ad_x),$$ for $1\le i\le r_0$ and $1\le j\le r_1$, it follows that
$$\{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_1,1\le j\le r_2\}\cup \{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_0,1\le j\le r_1\}\subseteq \text{im}(ad_x).$$ As $$|\{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_1,1\le j\le r_2\}|=r_1r_2,$$ $$|\{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_0,1\le j\le r_1\}|=r_0r_1,$$ and $$|\{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_1,1\le j\le r_2\}\cap \{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_0,1\le j\le r_1\}|=|\{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_1,1\le j\le r_1\}|=r_1^2,$$ we find that $$|\{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_1,1\le j\le r_2\}\cup \{E_{b_i,t_j}~|~1\le i\le r_0,1\le j\le r_1\}|= r_0r_1+r_1r_2-r_1^2=r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1).$$ Thus, $$r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1)\le \textup{rank}(ad_x)\le b(L).$$ The result follows.
\end{proof}

Combining Theorems~\ref{thm:pnrme} and~\ref{thm:pnrmc} we arrive at the following.

\begin{theorem}\label{six}
If $L=\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$, then $$b(L)=\begin{cases}
r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1) & r_1<r_0,r_2; \\
r_0r_2 & r_1\ge r_0\text{ or }r_1\ge r_2.
 \end{cases}$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
Let $L=\mathfrak{g}(r_0,r_1,r_2)$. Note that
\begin{itemize}
    \item if $r_1=1$, then $$b(L)=r_0+r_2-1= |\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\notin Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}|-1=\dim(L/ Z(L))-1$$ and
    \begin{equation}\label{eqn:third}
        b(L)=r_0+r_2-1\le r_0r_2= |\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}|=\dim([L,L]),
    \end{equation}
     where the inequality in \textup{(\ref{eqn:third})} is strict for $r_0,r_2>1$.

    \item if $1<r_1<r_0,r_2$, then $$b(L)=r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1)<r_1(r_0+r_2)-1= |\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\notin Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}|-1=\dim(L/ Z(L))-1$$ and
    \begin{equation}\label{eqn:fifth}
        b(L)=r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1)< r_0r_2= |\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}|=\dim([L,L]);
    \end{equation}
    the fact that the inequality in \textup{(\ref{eqn:fifth})} is strict follows by noting that $$r_0r_2=|\{(b_i,t_j)~|~1\le i\le r_0,~1\le j\le r_2\}|$$ and $$r_1(r_0+r_2-r_1)=|\{(b_i,t_j)~|~1\le i\le r_0,~1\le j\le r_2\}-\{(b_i,t_j)~|~r_1+1\le i\le r_0,~r_1+1\le j\le r_2\}|.$$

    \item if $r_1\ge r_0$ or $r_1\ge r_2$, then
    \begin{equation}\label{eqn:sixth}
        b(L)=r_0r_2\le r_1(r_0+r_2)-1= |\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\notin Rel_E(\mathcal{P})\}|-1=\dim(L/ Z(L))-1
    \end{equation}
     and $$b(L)= r_0r_2= |\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}|=\dim([L,L]),$$ where the inequality in \textup{(\ref{eqn:sixth})} is strict when either $r_0>1$, $r_2>1$, or $r_1>r_0,r_2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
It would be interesting to characterize those posets $\mathcal{P}$ for which $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$ satisfies $b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$.
\end{remark}

\section{Epilogue} The breadth of a Lie algebra $(L, [-,-])$ is defined as the \textit{maximum} dimension of the images of the one-forms $ad_x$, for $x\in L$. This is redolent of another integer invariant of $L$, the index, which is defined as the \textit{minimum} dimension of the kernels of the two-forms $B_f$, for $f\in L^*$, as follows:

\[
{\rm ind \hspace{.1cm}} L=\min_{f\in L^*} \dim  (\ker (B_f)),
\]

\noindent
where $B_f$ is the associated skew-symmetric \textit{Kirillov form} defined by $B_f(x,y)=f([x,y])$, for all $x,y\in L$. One finds that the index realizing one-forms $f$ are ubiquitous, being dense in both the Zariski and Euclidean topologies on $L^*$. We can ask an analogous question regarding the breadth  -- for one can define the breadth of an $x\in L$ as the dimension of the image of $ad_x$. In this way the breadth of $L$ is just the maximum breadth of its elements. We ask if there any structure to the collection of breadth realizing elements?

Another question concerns the possible values for the breadth of an element. If $b(L)>0$, and $v\in \{0,1,...,b(L)\}$, does there exist $x\in L$ with breadth $v$? If not, is there a pattern to the sequence of possible values?

\section{Appendix}

In this appendix, we prove parts (b) and (c) of Theorem~\ref{thm:breadthncov}.

\begin{customthm}{\ref{thm:breadthncov}}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[\textup{(a)}] If $\mathcal{P}=C_n$ and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then $$b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}.$$
    \item[\textup{(b)}] If $\mathcal{P}=\mathbf{2\times n}$ and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then $$b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-1)(3n-4)}{2}.$$
    \item[\textup{(c)}] If $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}=T_m(n)$ and $L=\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})$, then $$b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-2)m^{n+1}+(1-n)m^n+m^2}{(m-1)^2}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{customthm}

We break the proofs of parts (b) and (c) into two lemmas.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem1}
For each of the following posets $\mathcal{P}$, $b(\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P}))=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[\textup{(a)}] $\mathcal{P}=\mathbf{2\times n}$
    \item[\textup{(b)}] $\mathcal{P}=T_m(n)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In both cases, considering Proposition~\ref{prop:ub}(ii), to establish the result it suffices to show that $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|\le b(\mathfrak{g}^{\prec}(\mathcal{P})).$$
\bigskip

(a) For $\mathcal{P}=\mathbf{2\times n}$, to show that $|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|\le b(L)$ we construct $x\in L$ such that $E_{p,q}\in \text{im}(ad_x)$, for all $p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$. Consider $$x=\sum_i^{n-1}E_{i_1,(i+1)_1}+E_{i_2,(i+1)_2}.$$

\noindent
There are 4 groups of elements to consider.
\\*

\noindent
\textbf{Group 1}: $E_{1_1, p_k}$, for $1_1\prec p_k$, for $k=1,2$. If $1_1\prec p_k\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$, then $1_1\prec (p-1)_k\prec p_k$ and $$[x,-E_{1_1,(p-1)_k}]=E_{1_1,p_k}\in \text{im}(ad_x).$$

\noindent
\textbf{Group 2}: $E_{1_2, p_2}$, for $1_2\prec p_2$. If $1_2\prec p_2\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$, then $1_2\prec (p-1)_2\prec p_2$ and $$[x,-E_{1_2,(p-1)_2}]=E_{1_2,p_2}\in \text{im}(ad_x).$$

\noindent
\textbf{Group 3}: $E_{p_1, q_k}$, for $p_1\prec q_k$ where $k=1,2$ and $p>1$. If $p_1\prec q_k\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$, then $p_1\prec (q-1)_k\prec q_k$ and $$\left[x,-\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}E_{(p-i)_1,(q-i-1)_k}\right]=\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}E_{(p-i)_1,(q-i)_k}-\sum_{i=0}^{p-2}E_{(p-i-1)_1,(q-i-1)_k}=E_{p_1,q_k}\in \text{im}(ad_x).$$

\noindent
\textbf{Group 4}: $E_{1_1, p_k}$, for $p_2\prec q_2$ where $p>1$. If $p_2\prec q_2\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$, then $p_2\prec (q-1)_2\prec q_2$ and $$\left[x,-\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}E_{(p-i)_2,(q-i-1)_2}\right]=\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}E_{(p-i)_2,(q-i)_2}-\sum_{i=0}^{p-2}E_{(p-i-1)_2,(q-i-1)_2}=E_{p_2,q_2}\in \text{im}(ad_x).$$
\bigskip

\noindent
Thus, $$\text{im}(ad_x)\supset\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}$$ and $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\dim(\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\})\le \textup{rank}(ad_x)\le b(L).$$ It follows that $b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$.
\bigskip

(b) For $\mathcal{P}=T_m(n)$, evidently the result holds for $n=1,2$. For $n>2$, to show that $|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|\le b(L)$ we construct $x\in L$ such that $E_{p,q}\in \text{im}(ad_x)$, for all $p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$. Consider $$x=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\sum_{i=1}^{2^{k-1}}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} E_{i_k,(mi-j)_{k+1}}.$$ Note that $x=\sum E_{p,q}$, where the sum is over all covering relations $p\prec q$ in $\mathcal{P}$. Also note that $$\{p\prec q~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}=\{i_k\prec j_l~|~l-k>1\text{ and }m^{l-k}(i-1)+1\le j\le m^{l-k}i\}.$$ We will show that $E_{p,q}\in \text{im}(ad_x)$, for all $p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$, in $n-2$ steps.
\bigskip

\noindent
\textbf{Step 0}: $i_k\prec j_n$. If $i_k\prec j_n\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$, then there exists $0\le l\le m-1$ such that $i_k\prec (mi-l)_{k+1}\prec j_n$ and $$[x,E_{(mi-l)_{k+1}, j_n}]=E_{i_k,j_n}.$$

\noindent
\textbf{Step d}: $i_k\prec j_{n-d}$. If $i_k\prec j_{n-d}\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})$, then there exists $0\le l\le m-1$ such that $i_k\prec (mi-l)_{k+1}\prec j_{n-d}$ and $$[x,E_{(mi-l)_{k+1}, j_{n-d}}]=E_{i_k,j_{n-d}}-\sum_{t=0}^{m-1}E_{(mi-l)_{k+1},(mj-t)_{n-d+1}}.$$ As a consequence of \textbf{Step $\mathbf{d-1}$} we may conclude that $\sum_{t=0}^{m-1}E_{(mi-l)_{k+1},(mj-t)_{n-d+1}}\in \text{im}(ad_x)$. So, $E_{i_k,j_{n-d}}\in\text{im}(ad_x)$.
\bigskip

\noindent
Thus, $$\text{im}(ad_x)\supset\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\}$$ and $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\dim(\text{span}\{E_{p,q}~|~p\prec q\in Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})\})\le \textup{rank}(ad_x)\le b(L).$$ It follows that $b(L)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem2}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[\textup{(a)}] If $\mathcal{P}=\mathbf{2\times n}$, then $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-1)(3n-4)}{2}.$$
    \item[\textup{(b)}] If $\mathcal{P}=T_m(n)$, then $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P})|=\frac{(n-2)m^{n+1}+(1-n)m^n+m^2}{(m-1)^2}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a) By induction. Let $\mathcal{P}_n=\mathbf{2\times n}$ and $$f(n)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P}_n)|.$$ For $n=1$, direct computation shows that $f(1)=0$.  Assume the result holds for $1\le n-1$. Note that one can form $\mathcal{P}_n$ from $\mathcal{P}_{n-1}$ by adjoining a new maximal element $n_2$ satisfying $(n-1)_2\prec n_2$ as well as a new element $n_1$ satisfying $(n-1)_1\prec n_1\prec n_2$. Thus, $$f(n)=f(n-1)+|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P}_n,n_2)|+|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P}_n,n_1)|,$$ where $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P}_n,n_2)|=|\{j_1\prec n_2~|~1\le j\le n-1\}\cup \{j_2\prec n_2~|~1\le j\le n-2\}|=2n-3$$ and $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P}_n,n_1)|=|\{j_1\prec n_2~|~1\le j\le n-2\}|=n-2;$$ that is; $$f(n)=\frac{(n-2)(3n-7)}{2}+2n-3+n-2=\frac{(n-1)(3n-4)}{2}.$$ The result follows.
\bigskip

(b) Let $\mathcal{P}_n=T_m(n)$, $$f_1(n)=|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P}_n)|,$$ and $$f_2(n)=\frac{(n-2)m^{n+1}+(1-n)m^n+m^2}{(m-1)^2}.$$ By definition we have that $f_1(1)=f_1(2)=0$, $$f_2(1)=\frac{(1-2)m^{1+1}+(1-1)m^1+m^2}{(m-1)^2}=\frac{(-1)m^{2}+(0)m+m^2}{(m-1)^2}=\frac{-m^{2}+m^2}{(m-1)^2}=\frac{0}{(m-1)^2}=0,$$ and $$f_2(2)=\frac{(2-2)m^{2+1}+(1-2)m^2+m^2}{(m-1)^2}=\frac{(0)m^{3}+(-1)m^2+m^2}{(m-1)^2}=\frac{-m^{2}+m^2}{(m-1)^2}=\frac{0}{(m-1)^2}=0.$$ Thus, $f_1(n)=f_2(n)$, for $n=1,2$. For $n>2$, note that the induced poset defined by $\mathcal{P}_n\backslash\{1_1\}$ is the disjoint sum of $m$ copies of $\mathcal{P}_{n-1}$. Consequently, $$f_1(n)=mf_1(n-1)+|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P}_n,1_1)|,$$ where $$|Rel_{\overline{C}}(\mathcal{P}_n,1_1)|=|\{1_1\prec i_k~|~2<k\le n,1\le i\le m^{k-1}\}|=\sum_{k=2}^{n-1} m^{k}=m^2\left(\frac{m^{n-2}-1}{m-1}\right);$$ that is, $$f_1(n)=mf_1(n-1)+m^2\left(\frac{m^{n-2}-1}{m-1}\right).$$ Now, note that $$mf_2(n-1)+m^2\left(\frac{m^{n-2}-1}{m-1}\right)=m\left(\frac{(n-3)m^{n}+(2-n)m^{n-1}+m^2}{(m-1)^2}\right)+m^2\left(\frac{m^{n-2}-1}{m-1}\right)$$ $$=\frac{(n-3)m^{n+1}+(2-n)m^{n}+m^3}{(m-1)^2}+\frac{m^{n}-m^2}{m-1}$$ $$=\frac{(n-3)m^{n+1}+(2-n)m^{n}+m^3}{(m-1)^2}+\frac{m^{n+1}-m^n-m^3+m^2}{(m-1)^2}$$ $$=\frac{(n-2)m^{n+1}+(1-n)m^n+m^2}{(m-1)^2}=f_2(n).$$ Therefore, since $f_1(n)$ and $f_2(n)$ satisfy the same initial conditions and recursive relation, they are equal.
\end{proof}

Combining the results of Lemmas~\ref{lem1} and~\ref{lem2} establishes the remaining cases of Theorem~\ref{thm:breadthncov}.

The breadth of Lie poset algebras


Scaled Relative Graph of Normal Matrices

Abstract: The Scaled Relative Graph (SRG) by Ryu, Hannah, and Yin (arXiv:1902.09788, 2019) is a geometric tool that maps the action of a multi-valued nonlinear operator onto the 2D plane, used to analyze the convergence of a wide range of iterative methods. As the SRG includes the spectrum for linear operators, we can view the SRG as a generalization of the spectrum to multi-valued nonlinear operators. In this work, we further study the SRG of linear operators and characterize the SRG of block-diagonal and normal matrices.

\section{Introduction}
The Scaled Relative Graph (SRG), recently proposed by Ryu, Hannah, and Yin \cite{ryu2019scaled}, is a geometric tool that maps the action of a multi-valued nonlinear operator onto the extended complex plane, analogous to how the spectrum maps the action of a linear operator to the complex plane.
The SRG can be used to analyze convergence of a wide range of iterative methods expressed as fixed-point iterations.

\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent
\textbf{Scaled relative graph.}
For a matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, define $z_A\colon\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ with
\[
z_A(x)=\frac{\| Ax\|}{\| x\|}\exp[i\angle (Ax,x)],
\]
where \begin{align*}
    \angle(a,b) =
    \left\{
    \begin{array}{ll}
    \arccos\left(\tfrac{a^Tb}{\|a\|\|b\|}\right)&\text{ if }a\ne 0,\,b\ne 0\\
    0&\text{ otherwise}
    \end{array}
    \right.
\end{align*}
denotes the angle in $ [0,\pi]$ between $a$ and $b$.
The SRG of a matrix $A\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is
\[
{\mathcal{G}}(A)=\left\{z_A(x),\overline{z_A}(x):x\in \mathbb{R}^n,\,x\ne 0\right\}.
\]
This definition of the SRG, specific to (single-valued) linear operators, coincides with the more general definition for nonlinear multi-valued operators provided in \cite{ryu2019scaled}.
Ryu, Hannah, and Yin showed the SRG generalizes spectrum  in the following sense.
\begin{fact}[Theorem~3.1 of \cite{ryu2019scaled}]
\label{fact1}
If $A\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ and $n = 1$ or $n\ge 3$, then $\Lambda(A)\subseteq {\mathcal{G}}(A)$.
\end{fact}

2D geometric illustrations have been used
by Eckstein and Bertsekas \cite{eckstein1989,eckstein1992},
Giselsson \cite{giselsson2017linear,giselsson_slides},
Banjac and Goulart \cite{banjac2018},
and Giselsson and Moursi \cite{giselsson_moursi2019}
to qualitatively understand convergence of optimization algorithms.
Ryu, Hannah, and Yin presented the SRG as  a rigorous formulation of such illustrations \cite{ryu2019scaled}.

\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent
\textbf{Contributions.}
Prior work \cite{ryu2019scaled,huang2019scaled} focused on the SRG of \emph{nonlinear} multi-valued operators.
For linear operators, Ryu, Hannah, and Yin \cite{ryu2019scaled} established ${\mathcal{G}}(A)$ includes $\Lambda(A)$, as stated in Fact~\ref{fact1}, but did not characterize when and how ${\mathcal{G}}(A)$ enlarges $\Lambda(A)$.
In this work, we further study the SRG of linear operators.
In particular, we fully characterize the SRG of block-diagonal and normal matrices as a certain polygon in hyperbolic (non-Euclidean) geometry, under the Poincar\'e half-plane model.

\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent
\textbf{Preliminaries.}
Let $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$.
Write $\Lambda(A)$ for the spectrum, the set of eigenvalues, of $A$.
$A$ is \emph{normal} if $A^TA=AA^T$.
Given matrices $A_1,\dots,A_m$, write $\Diag(A_1,\dots,A_m)$ for the block-diagonal matrix with $m$ blocks.
For $z\in \mathbb{C}$, write $\overline{z}$ for its complex conjugate.
For a set $S\subseteq\mathbb{C}$, write $S^+=\{z\in S\,|\Im z\geq 0\}$.
In particular, write $\mathbb{C}^+=\{z\in \mathbb{C}\,|\Im z\geq 0\}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}^+(A)=\left\{z_A(x):x\in \mathbb{R}^n,\,x\ne 0\right\}$.
Note $z_A(x)\in \mathbb{C}^+$ for all nonzero $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$.
For $z_1,z_2\in \mathbb{C}$, define
\[
[z_1,z_2]=\{\theta z_1+(1-\theta)z_2:\theta\in[0,1]\},
\]
i.e., $[z_1,z_2]$ is the line segment connecting $z_1$ and $z_2$.

\section{Arc-edge polygon and arc-convexity}
Consider points $z_1,z_2\in \mathbb{C}^+$.
If $\Re z_1\neq \Re z_2$, let $ \mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2) $ be the circle in $\mathbb{C} $ through $z_1$ and $z_2$ with the center on the real axis.
We can construct $ \mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2) $ by finding the center as the intersection of the perpendicular bisector of $[z_1,z_2]$ and the real axis.
If $\Re z_1= \Re z_2$ but $z_1\ne z_2$, let $\mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2)$ be the line extending $[z_1,z_2]$. If $z_1=z_2$, then $\mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2)$ is undefined.
If $\Re z_1\neq \Re z_2$, let $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)\subseteq \mathbb{C}^+$ be the arc of $ \mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2)$ between $z_1$ and $z_2$ in the upper-half plane.
(If $\Im z_1>0$ or $\Im z_2>0$, then $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)\subseteq \mathbb{C}^+$ is the minor arc of $ \mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2)$ between $z_1$ and $z_2$.
If $\Im z_1=\Im z_2=0$, then $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)$ is a semicircle in $\mathbb{C}^+$.)
If $\Re z_1= \Re z_2$ but $z_1\ne z_2$, let $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)=[z_1,z_2]$.
If $z_1=z_2$, then $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)=\{z_1\}$.
For $z_1,z_2\in \mathbb{C}^+$ such that $\Re z_1\neq \Re z_2$, let $\mathrm{Disk}(z_1,z_2)$ and $\mathrm{Disk}^\circ (z_1,z_2)$ respectively be the closed and open disks enclosed by $ \mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2) $.
Figure~\ref{fig:circ_arc_def} illustrates these definitions.

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.75]
	\def\a{15};
	\def\b{75};
	\def2.5{2.5}
	\def\t{2};

	\coordinate (A) at ({\t+2.5*cos(\a)},{2.5*sin(\a)});
	\coordinate (B) at ({\t+2.5*cos(\b)},{2.5*sin(\b)});

	\begin{scope}
	\draw [<->] (-1,0) -- (5,0);
	\draw [<->] (0,-2.5) -- (0,2.5);
	\end{scope}

	\draw [dashed] (2,0) circle (2.5);
	\draw (-1.2,2.3) node[below] {$\mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2)$};
	\def\tc{150};
	\draw [->] (-0.6,1.7) -- ({2+2.5*cos(\tc)},{2.5*sin(\tc)});

	\draw [line width = 1/0.75] (A) arc ({\a}:{\b}:{2.5});
	\draw (A) node[right] {$z_2$};
	\draw (B) node[above] {$z_1$};

	\draw (4.7,2.3) node[above] {$\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)$};
	\def\tr{60};
	\draw [->] (4.1,2.5) -- ({2+2.5*cos(\tr)},{2.5*sin(\tr)});

	\draw [] (A) -- (B);
	\draw [] (-0.5,-2.5) -- (4.2,2.2);

	\draw [] ({\t+(0.77*2.5*cos(\a)+0.23*2.5*cos(\b))+0.1},{(0.77*2.5*sin(\a)+0.23*2.5*sin(\b))+0.1}) -- ({\t+(0.77*2.5*cos(\a)+0.23*2.5*cos(\b))-0.1},{(0.77*2.5*sin(\a)+0.23*2.5*sin(\b))-0.1});
	\draw [] ({\t+(0.73*2.5*cos(\a)+0.27*2.5*cos(\b))+0.1},{(0.73*2.5*sin(\a)+0.27*2.5*sin(\b))+0.1}) -- ({\t+(0.73*2.5*cos(\a)+0.27*2.5*cos(\b))-0.1},{(0.73*2.5*sin(\a)+0.27*2.5*sin(\b))-0.1});

	\draw [] ({\t+(0.77*2.5*cos(\b)+0.23*2.5*cos(\a))+0.1},{(0.77*2.5*sin(\b)+0.23*2.5*sin(\a))+0.1}) -- ({\t+(0.77*2.5*cos(\b)+0.23*2.5*cos(\a))-0.1},{(0.77*2.5*sin(\b)+0.23*2.5*sin(\a))-0.1});
	\draw [] ({\t+(0.73*2.5*cos(\b)+0.27*2.5*cos(\a))+0.1},{(0.73*2.5*sin(\b)+0.27*2.5*sin(\a))+0.1}) -- ({\t+(0.73*2.5*cos(\b)+0.27*2.5*cos(\a))-0.1},{(0.73*2.5*sin(\b)+0.27*2.5*sin(\a))-0.1});

	\coordinate (C) at ({\t+0.5*(2.5*cos(\a)+2.5*cos(\b))},{0.5*(2.5*sin(\a)+2.5*sin(\b))});
	\coordinate (O) at (2.0,0);
	\tkzMarkRightAngle[size=0.2](O,C,A);

	\filldraw (\t,0) circle ({1.0/0.75pt});
	\filldraw (A) circle ({1.0/0.75pt});
	\filldraw (B) circle ({1.0/0.75pt});

	\end{tikzpicture}
	\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.75]
	\def\a{15};
	\def\b{75};
	\def2.5{2.5}
	\def\t{1.5};

	\coordinate (A) at (\t,2);
	\coordinate (B) at (\t,0.5);

	\begin{scope}
	\draw [<->] (-1,0) -- (5,0);
	\draw [<->] (0,-2.5) -- (0,2.5);
	\end{scope}

	\draw [line width =1/0.7] (A) -- (B);
	\draw [dashed] (\t,-2.5) -- (\t,2.5);
	\draw (\t+0.3,-1) node[right] {$\mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2)$};
	\draw [->] (\t+0.4,-1) -- (\t,-1);

	\draw (A) node[right] {$z_1$};
	\draw (B) node[right] {$z_2$};

	\draw (\t+0.3,1) node[above right] {$\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)$};
	\draw [->] (\t+0.4,1.35) -- (\t,1.35);

	\filldraw (\t,0) circle ({1.0/0.75pt});
	\filldraw (A) circle ({1.0/0.75pt});
	\filldraw (B) circle ({1.0/0.75pt});

	\end{tikzpicture}
	\caption{Illustration of $\mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2)$ and $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)$.
	}
	\label{fig:circ_arc_def}
\end{figure}

For $m\ge 1$ and $z_1,\dots,z_m\in\mathbb{C}^+$, we call $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_m)$ an \emph{arc-edge polygon} and define it as follows.
For $m=1$, let $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1)=\{z_1\}$.
For $m\ge 2$, let
\begin{equation*}
S=\bigcup_{1\le i,j\le m}\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_i,z_j)
\label{s:def}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_m)=S\cup \{\text{region enclosed by $S$}\}.
\label{poly:def}
\end{equation*}
Figure~\ref{fig:a-e-poly-example} illustrates this definition.
Note $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,z_2)=\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)$.
The ``region enclosed by $S$'' is the union of all regions enclosed by non-self-intersecting continuous loops (Jordan curves) within $S$.
Since $S$ is a connected set, we can alternatively define $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_m)$ as the smallest simply connected set containing $S$.

\afterpage{%
\begin{figure}[H]
	\begin{center}
		\begin{tabular}{c}
			\raisebox{-.5\height}{
				\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
 				\clip (-2.55,-2) rectangle (5.55,3.5);

				\fill [fill=medgrey](4,1) -- (4,2) arc ({atan(2/(4-7/4))}:{atan(3/(2-7/4))}:{sqrt((4-7/4)^2+2^2)})--(2,3) arc (139.3987:167.4712:4.61);
				\fill[fill=white](2.5,0) circle (1.803);

				\draw [line width =1] (4,1) arc (18.4349:71.5651:3.1623);
				\draw [line width =1] (4,2) arc ({atan(2/(4-7/4))}:{atan(3/(2-7/4))}:{sqrt((4-7/4)^2+2^2)});
				\draw [line width =1] (4,2)--(4,1);
				\draw [line width =1] (4,2) arc ({atan(2/(4-3))}:{180-atan(1/(3-1))}:{sqrt(1+(3-1)^2)});
				\draw [line width =1] (2,3) arc (139.3987:167.4712:4.61);
				\draw [line width=1] (4,1) arc (33.7:146.3:1.8);

				\draw[dashed] (4,-3.5) -- (4,3.5);
				\draw[dashed] (3,0) circle ({sqrt(2^2+1)});
				\draw[dashed] (1,0) circle ({sqrt(3^2+1^2)});
				\draw[dashed] (2.5,{3.5}) arc ({180-atan(3.5/(5.5-2.5))}:{180+atan(3.5/(5.5-2.5))}:{sqrt(4.5^2+1)});
				\draw[dashed] (2.5,0) circle ({sqrt(1+1.5^2)});
				\draw[dashed] (7/4,0) circle ({sqrt(2^2+(4-7/4)^2)});

				\draw (1,1.1) node[below right] {$z_1$};
				\draw (2.15,3) node[above left] {$z_2$};
				\draw (4,1.9) node[above right] {$z_3$};
				\draw (4,1.1) node[below left] {$z_4$};

				\filldraw (1,1) circle ({1.0/1.5pt});
				\filldraw (2,3) circle ({1.0/1.5pt});
				\filldraw (4,2) circle ({1.0/1.5pt});
				\filldraw (4,1) circle ({1.0/1.5pt});

				\draw [<->] (-2.5,0) -- (5.5,0);
				\draw [<->] (0,-2) -- (0,3.5);
				\end{tikzpicture}}
		\end{tabular}
	\end{center}
	\caption{ The shaded region illustrates the arc-edge polygon $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)$ for $z_1=1+i$, $z_2=2+3i$, $z_3=4+2i$, and $z_4=4+i$. The solid arcs illustrate $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_i,z_j)$ and the dashed circles illustrate $\mathrm{Circ}(z_i,z_j)$ for $i,j=1,\dots,m$.}
	\label{fig:a-e-poly-example}
\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[h]
 	\begin{center}
		\raisebox{-.5\height}{
 		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.9]

 		\fill [fill=medgrey] (2,1) -- (2,2) arc ({acos(sqrt(5)/5)}:{acos((-2)*sqrt(5)/5)}:{sqrt(5)}) -- (-1,1) arc ({90:0:1}) -- (0,0) arc (180:{atan(0.5/0.375)}:0.625) -- (1,0.5) arc ({180-atan(0.5/(15/8-1))}:{atan(1/(2-15/8))}:{sqrt((7/8)^2+0.5^2)});

 		\draw[] (2,2) arc ({acos(sqrt(5)/5)}:{acos((-2)*sqrt(5)/5)}:{sqrt(5)});
 		\draw[] (1,0.5) arc ({atan(0.5/0.375)}:180:0.625);
 		\draw[] (0,0) arc (0:90:1);
 		\draw[] (2,1) -- (2,2);
 		\draw[] (2,1) arc ({atan(1/(2-15/8))}:{180-atan(0.5/(15/8-1))}:{sqrt((7/8)^2+0.5^2)});

 		\draw[] (2,2) arc ({180-atan(2/(27/8-2))}:{180-atan(0.5/(27/8-1))}:{sqrt((19/8)^2+(1/2)^2)});
 		\draw[] (2,1) arc ({atan(1/1.5)}:{180-atan(1/1.5)}:{sqrt(1.5^2+1)});
 		\draw[] (2,1) arc ({atan(1/0.75)}:180:1.25);
 		\draw[] (2,2) arc (90:180:2);
 		\draw[] (1,0.5) arc ({atan(0.5/(1+3/16))}:{180-atan(1/(-3/16+1))}:{sqrt((1+3/16)^2+0.5^2)});

 		\draw[] (0.5,{sqrt(19/4)}) arc ({180-atan(sqrt(19/4)/4.5)}:180:5);
 		\draw[] (1,0.5) arc ({atan(0.5/(1+15/4))}:{atan(sqrt(19/4)/(0.5+15/4))}:{sqrt((17/4)^2+19/4)});
 		\draw[] (2,1) arc ({atan(1/2)}:{atan(sqrt(19/4)/0.5)}:{sqrt(5)});

 		\draw[] (0,0) arc (0:{atan(1/0.75)}:{1.25});
 		\draw[] (-0.5,1) arc ({atan(1/0.25)}:{180-atan(1/0.25)}:{sqrt(1+0.25^2)});
 		\draw[] (1,0.5) arc ({atan(0.5)}:{180-atan(2)}:{sqrt(5/4)});
 		\draw[] (2,1) arc ({atan(1/1.25)}:{180-atan(1/1.25)}:{sqrt(1+1.25^2)});
 		\draw[] (2,2) arc ({atan(2/(2-27/20))}:{180-atan(1/(27/20+0.5))}:{sqrt(4+(13/20)^2)});

 		\filldraw (-1,1) circle (1.0/1.9pt);
 		\filldraw (0,0) circle (1.0/1.9pt);
 		\filldraw (1,0.5) circle (1.0/1.9pt);
 		\filldraw (2,2) circle (1.0/1.9pt);
		\filldraw (2,1) circle (1.0/1.9pt);
 		\filldraw (0.5,{sqrt(19/4)}) circle (1.0/1.9pt);

 		\filldraw (-0.5,1) circle (1.0/1.9pt);

 		\draw (-0.12,0.1) node {$z_1$};
 		\draw (1.07,0.4) node {$z_2$};
 		\draw (2.1,0.9) node {$z_3$};
 		\draw (2.1,2.1) node {$z_4$};
 		\draw (0.45,2.27) node {$z_5$};
 		\draw (-1.05,0.9) node {$z_6$};
 		\draw (-0.29,0.97) node {$z_7$};

		\draw [dashed] (-1.2,0) -- (2.2,0);

 		\end{tikzpicture}}
\!$\stackrel{f\circ g}{\longrightarrow}$\!
		\raisebox{-.5\height}{
 		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2.4]
		\draw [dashed] (0,0) circle (1);
	\filldraw[fill=white] (1,0) circle (1.0/2.4pt);

	\coordinate (z1) at (-1,0);
	\coordinate (z2) at (1/9,-8/9);
	\coordinate (z3) at (2/3,-2/3);
	\coordinate (z4) at (7/9,-4/9);
	\coordinate (z5) at (2/3,-1/6);
	\coordinate (z6) at (1/3,2/3);
	\coordinate (z7) at (1/9,4/9);

	\fill[medgrey] (z1) -- (z2) -- (z3) -- (z4) -- (z5) -- (z6);

	\draw [] (z1) -- (z2);
	\draw [] (z2) -- (z3);
	\draw [] (z3) -- (z4);
	\draw [] (z4) -- (z5);
	\draw [] (z5) -- (z6);
	\draw [] (z6) -- (z1);

	\draw [] (z1) -- (z3);
	\draw [] (z1) -- (z4);
	\draw [] (z1) -- (z5);
	\draw [] (z1) -- (z6);
	\draw [] (z1) -- (z7);
	\draw [] (z2) -- (z4);
	\draw [] (z2) -- (z5);
	\draw [] (z2) -- (z6);
	\draw [] (z2) -- (z7);
	\draw [] (z3) -- (z5);
	\draw [] (z3) -- (z6);
	\draw [] (z3) -- (z7);
	\draw [] (z4) -- (z7);
	\draw [] (z5) -- (z6);
	\draw [] (z6) -- (z7);

		\filldraw (z1) circle (1.0/2.4pt);
		\filldraw (z2) circle (1.0/2.4pt);
		\filldraw (z3) circle (1.0/2.4pt);
		\filldraw (z4) circle (1.0/2.4pt);
		\filldraw (z5) circle (1.0/2.4pt);
		\filldraw (z6) circle (1.0/2.4pt);
		\filldraw (z7) circle (1.0/2.4pt);

		\draw (-1.1,-0.05) node {$w_1$};
		\draw (-0.0,-0.92) node {$w_2$};
		\draw (0.8,-0.8) node {$w_3$};
		\draw (1,-0.5) node {$w_4$};
		\draw (0.8,-0.15) node {$w_5$};
		\draw (0.33,0.74) node {$w_6$};
		\draw (0.02,0.29) node {$w_7$};

 		\end{tikzpicture}}
 	\end{center}
 	\caption{Illustration of $f\circ g$ and  Lemma~\ref{lem:arc-convex2}. The one-to-one map $f\circ g$ of \eqref{eq:fg-klein} maps $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_7)$ (a hyperbolic polygon) into a Euclidean polygon. We denote the mapped points as $w_i=f(g(z_i))$ for $i=1,\dots,7$. The equivalent Euclidean geometry tells us that $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_7)$ is ``convex''  and can be enclosed by the curve through $z_1\rightarrow z_2\rightarrow z_3\rightarrow z_4\rightarrow z_6\rightarrow z_1$.
Note that $z_5$ and $z_7$ are not necessary in the description of the boundary.
}
 	\label{fig:hyperbolic}
 \end{figure}
 \clearpage
 }

This construction of $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}$ gives rise to the classical \emph{Poincar\'e half-plane model} of hyperbolic (non-Euclidean) geometry, where a $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_1,z_2)$ and $\mathrm{Circ}(z_1,z_2)\cap \mathbb{C}^+$ are, respectively, the ``line segment'' between $z_1$ and $z_2$ and the ``line'' through $z_1$ and $z_2$ in the hyperbolic space \cite{beltrami_eugenio_1868_2243105,Poincare}.
The \emph{Beltrami--Klein model} maps the Poincar\'e half-plane model onto the unit disk and $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}$ to straight line segments \cite{Klein1873,Beltrami1868}.
Specifically, the one-to-one map
\begin{equation}
f\circ g\colon \mathbb{C}^+\rightarrow \{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z|\le 1,\,z\ne 1\}
\label{eq:fg-klein}
\end{equation}
defined by
\[
f(z)= \frac{2z}{1+|z|^2},
\qquad
g(z)= \frac{z-i}{z+i}
\]
maps the Poincar\'e half-plane model to the Beltrami--Klein model
while mapping hyperbolic line segments $\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}$ into Euclidean straight line segments.
The Beltrami--Klein model demonstrates that any qualitative statement about convexity in the Euclidean plane is equivalent to an analogous statement in the Poincar\'e half-plane model.
See Figure~\ref{fig:hyperbolic}.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:arc-convex2}
Let $z_1,\dots,z_m\in\mathbb{C}^+$ and $m\ge 1$.
Then $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_m)$ is ``convex'' in the following non-Euclidean sense:
\[
w_1,w_2\in \mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_m)
\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(w_1,w_2)\subseteq \mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_m).
\]
If $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_m)$ has an interior, then there is $\{\zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_q\}\subseteq\{z_1,\dots,z_m\}$ such that
\[
\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)\cup \mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(\zeta_2,\zeta_3)\cup \cdots \cup
\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(\zeta_{q-1},\zeta_q)\cup \mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(\zeta_q,\zeta_1)
\]
is a Jordan curve, and the region the curve encloses is $\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_m)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $w_1,\dots,w_m$ be in the unit complex disk. Consider the construction
\[
\tilde{S}=\bigcup_{1\le i,j\le m}[w_i,w_j]
\]
and
\[
\widetilde{\mathrm{Poly}}(w_1,\dots,w_m)=
\tilde{S}\cup \{\text{region enclosed by $\tilde{S}$}\}.
\]
This is the (Euclidean) 2D polyhedron given as the convex hull of $w_1,\dots,w_m$.
The Euclidean convex hull has the properties analogous to those in the Lemma statement, and we use the map $(f\circ g)^{-1}$, where $f\circ g$ is as given by \eqref{eq:fg-klein} to map the properties to our setup.
\end{proof}

\section{SRGs of block-diagonal matrices}
We characterize the SRG of block-diagonal matrices as follows.
\begin{theorem}
\label{mat-main-thm}
Let $A_1,\dots,A_m$ be square matrices, where $m\ge 1$.
Then
\[
{\mathcal{G}}^+\left(\Diag(A_1,\dots,A_m)\right)
=\bigcup_{\substack{z_i\in \mathcal{G}^+(A_i)\\
i=1,\dots,m}}\mathrm{Poly}(z_1,\dots,z_m).
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
When $m=1$, there is nothing to show.
Assume $m\ge 2$.

\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{Step 1.}
Let $A_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n_i\times n_i}$  and $u_i\in \mathbb{R}^{n_i}$ for $i=1,\dots,m$.
We use the notation $n=n_1+\dots+n_m$,
\[
\mathbf{u}=
\begin{bmatrix}
u_1\\\vdots\\u_m
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^n,
\qquad
\mathbf{u}_i=
\begin{bmatrix}
0\\\vdots\\0\\u_i\\0\\\vdots\\0
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^n\quad\text{for }i=1,\dots,m,
\]
and $\mathbf{A}=\Diag(A_1,\dots,A_m)\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$.
Then we have
\begin{align}
{\mathcal{G}}^+\left(\Diag(A_1,\dots,A_m)\right)&=
\bigcup_{\substack{\mathbf{u}\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash\{0\}}}z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u})\nonumber\\
&=
\bigcup_{\substack{u_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n_i},\,u_i\ne 0\\i=1,\dots,m}}z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)
\label{thm:first_eq}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\bigcup_{\substack{u_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n_i},\,u_i\ne 0\\i=1,\dots,m}}\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right)
&=
\bigcup_{\substack{u_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n_i},\,u_i\ne 0\\i=1,\dots,m}}\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{A_1}(u_1),\dots,z_{A_m}(u_m)\right)
\nonumber\\
&=\bigcup_{\substack{z_i\in {\mathcal{G}}^+(A_i)\\i=1,\dots,m}}\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_1,\dots,z_m\right).
\label{thm:second_eq}
\end{align}
To clarify, $\mathbf{u}_i$ depends on $u_i$ for $i=1,\dots,m$.
In the following, we show
\begin{equation}
z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)
=
\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right)
\label{thm:third_eq}
\end{equation}
for all $\mathbf{u}_i$ given by $u_i\ne 0$ for $i=1,\dots,m$.
Once \eqref{thm:third_eq} is proved, \eqref{thm:first_eq} and \eqref{thm:second_eq} are equivalent and the proof is complete.

\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{Step 2.}
We show the following intermediate result:
for all nonzero $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\rangle=\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\rangle=\langle \mathbf{u},\mathbf{A}\mathbf{v}\rangle=\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{u},\mathbf{A}\mathbf{v}\rangle=0,
\label{eq:step2-cond}
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
z_\mathbf{A}(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})\backslash \{0\})= \mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u}),z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})).
\label{eq:step2}
\end{equation}

First, consider the case $\Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u})\ne \Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})$.
Let the circle $\mathrm{Circ}(z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u}),z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v}))$ be centered at $(t,0)$ with $t\in \mathbb{R}$ and radius $r\ge 0$.
Then $z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u})$ and $z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})$ satisfy
\begin{align*}
(\Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u})-t)^2+(\Im z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u}))^2&=r^2\\
(\Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})-t)^2+(\Im z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v}))^2&=r^2.
\end{align*}
This is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
&\langle \mathbf{A} \mathbf{u},\mathbf{A} \mathbf{u}\rangle -2t\langle \mathbf{A} \mathbf{u}, \mathbf{u}\rangle +(t^2-r^2)\langle  \mathbf{u}, \mathbf{u}\rangle=0\\
&\langle \mathbf{A} \mathbf{v},\mathbf{A} \mathbf{v}\rangle -2t\langle \mathbf{A} \mathbf{v}, \mathbf{v}\rangle +(t^2-r^2)\langle  \mathbf{v}, \mathbf{v}\rangle=0.
\end{align*}
Let $\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbf{w}=\alpha_1\mathbf{u}+\alpha_2\mathbf{v}$. Assume $\mathbf{w}\ne 0$.
Using \eqref{eq:step2-cond} and basic calculations, we have
\[
\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{w} ,\mathbf{A} \mathbf{w}\rangle -2t\langle \mathbf{A} \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{w}\rangle +(t^2-r^2)\langle  \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{w}\rangle=0,
\]
and this is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
(\Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{w})-t)^2+(\Im z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{w}))^2&=r^2.
\end{align*}
Therefore
\[
z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{w})=z_\mathbf{A}(\alpha_1\mathbf{u}+\alpha_2\mathbf{v})\in \mathrm{Circ}(z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u}),z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})).
\]
Notice that
\[
\Re\,z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{w})=\frac{\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{w} , \mathbf{w}\rangle}{\langle\mathbf{w}, \mathbf{w}\rangle}=\frac{\alpha_1^2\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u}\rangle+\alpha_2^2\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v}\rangle}{\alpha_1^2\langle\mathbf{u} , \mathbf{u}\rangle+\alpha_2^2\langle\mathbf{v} , \mathbf{v}\rangle}
\]
fills the interval $[\Re\,z_A(\mathbf{u}),\Re\,z_A(\mathbf{v})]$ as $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ varies. So we have
\[
\bigcup_{
\substack{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in\mathbb{R}\\
\alpha_1\mathbf{u}+\alpha_2\mathbf{v}\ne 0}}
z_\mathbf{A}(\alpha_1\mathbf{u}+\alpha_2\mathbf{v})= \mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u}),z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v}))
\]
and we conclude \eqref{eq:step2}.

Next, consider the case $\Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u})= \Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})$.
Note that
\[
\Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u})=
\frac{\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{u} , \mathbf{u}\rangle}{\langle\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{u}\rangle},
\qquad
\Re z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})=\frac{\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{v} , \mathbf{v}\rangle}{\langle\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{v}\rangle}.
\]
Let $\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbf{w}=\alpha_1\mathbf{u}+\alpha_2\mathbf{v}$.
Assume $\mathbf{w}\neq0$.
Using \eqref{eq:step2-cond} and basic calculations, we have
\[
\Re\,z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{w})=\frac{\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{w} , \mathbf{w}\rangle}{\langle\mathbf{w}, \mathbf{w}\rangle}=\Re\,z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u})=\Re\,z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v}).
\]
Notice that
\[
|z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{w})|^2=\frac{\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{w},\mathbf{A}\mathbf{w}\rangle}{\langle \mathbf{w},\mathbf{w}\rangle}=\frac{\alpha_1^2\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{u},\mathbf{A}\mathbf{u}\rangle+\alpha_2^2\langle \mathbf{A}\mathbf{v},\mathbf{A}\mathbf{v}\rangle}{\alpha_1^2\langle\mathbf{u} , \mathbf{u}\rangle+\alpha_2^2\langle\mathbf{v} , \mathbf{v}\rangle}
\]
fills the interval $[|z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u})|^2,|z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})|^2]$ as $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ varies.
So $\Im\,z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{w})$ fills the interval $[\Im\,z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u}),\Im\,z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})]$ as $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ varies, and we conclude
\[
z_\mathbf{A}(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})\backslash \{0\})=[z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u}),z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})]= \mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{u}),z_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{v})).
\]

\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{Step 3.}
We show
\begin{equation}
z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)
\subseteq
\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right)
\label{eq:step6-inclusion}
\end{equation}
by induction. Clearly
\[
z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1)\backslash\{0\}\right)
=
\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1)\right).
\]
Now assume \eqref{eq:step6-inclusion} holds for $m-1$.
By \eqref{eq:step2}, we have
\[
z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)=
 \bigcup_{\zeta\in z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_{m-1})\backslash\{0\}\right)}\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(\zeta,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)).
\]
By the induction hypothesis, $\zeta\in z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_{m-1})\backslash\{0\}\right)$, implies
\[
\zeta\in
\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_{m-1})\right)
\subseteq
\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right).
\]
By construction,
\[
z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\in
\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right).
\]
``Convexity'' of Lemma~\ref{lem:arc-convex2} implies
\[
 \bigcup_{\zeta\in z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_{m-1})\backslash\{0\}\right)}\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(\zeta,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m))
 \subseteq \mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right),
\]
and we conclude \eqref{eq:step6-inclusion}.

\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{Step 4.}
We show
\begin{equation}
z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)
\supseteq
\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right).
\label{eq:step3-identity}
\end{equation}

First, consider the case where $\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right)$ has no interior.
In 2D Euclidean geometry, a polygon has no interior when it is a single line segment or a point.
The Beltrami--Klein model provides us with an equivalent statement in hyperbolic geometry: the ``polygon''  can be expressed as $\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right)=\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_1),z_{\mathbf{A}}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_2))$ where $\boldsymbol{\mu}_1,\boldsymbol{\mu}_2\in \{\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m\}$.
By the reasoning of Step 2, we conclude
\begin{align*}
z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)
&\supseteq
z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_1,\boldsymbol{\mu}_2)\backslash\{0\}\right)\\
&=
\mathrm{Arc}_\mathrm{min}(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_1),z_{\mathbf{A}}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_2))=\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right).
\end{align*}

Next, consider the case where $\mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right)$ has an interior.
In this case, $\dim \mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\ge 3$ by the arguments of Step 2.
Assume for contradiction that there is a  $z\in  \mathrm{Poly}\left(z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_1),\dots,z_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbf{u}_m)\right)$ but $z\notin z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)$.
Let $\zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_q$ be vertices provided by Lemma~\ref{lem:arc-convex2}.
There exists corresponding  $\{\boldsymbol{\mu}_1,\dots,\boldsymbol{\mu}_q\}\subseteq\{\textbf{u}_1,\dots,\textbf{u}_m\}$ such that $\zeta_i=z_\mathbf{A}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_i)$
for $i=1,\dots,q$.
Define the curve
\[
\boldsymbol{\eta}(t):[1,q+1]\rightarrow \mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\cap S^{m-1},
\]
where $S^{m-1}\subset \mathbb{R}^m$ is the unit sphere, as
\[
\boldsymbol{\eta}(t)=\frac{\cos((t-p)\frac{\pi}{2})}{\|\boldsymbol{\mu}_p\|}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{p}+\frac{\sin((t-p)\frac{\pi}{2})}{\|\boldsymbol{\mu}_{p+1}\|}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{p+1},\qquad \text{ for }p\leq t\leq p+1.
\]
where we regard $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{q+1}$ as $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{1}$. Then $\{\gamma(t)\}_{\{t\in[1,q+1]\}}=\{z_{\mathbf{A}}(\boldsymbol{\eta}(t))\}_{t\in [1,q+1]}$ encloses $z$.

Since $\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\cap S^{m-1}$ is simply connected, we can continuously contract $\{\boldsymbol{\eta}(t)\}_{t\in [1,q+1]}$ to a point in  $\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\cap S^{m-1}$ and the curve under the map $z_\mathbf{A}$ continuously contracts to a point in $z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)$.
However, this is not possible as
$z\notin z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)$ and $\{\gamma(t)\}_{\{t\in[1,q+1]\}}$ has a nonzero winding number around $z$.
We have a contradiction and we conclude  $z\in z_\mathbf{A}\left(\mathrm{span}(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_m)\backslash\{0\}\right)$.
\end{proof}

\section{SRGs of normal matrices}
We now use Theorem~\ref{mat-main-thm} to fully characterize the SRG of normal matrices.

\begin{figure}[h]
    \centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\begin{scope}
\clip (0,-4.6) rectangle (0,4.6);
\end{scope}

\draw (-2.5,3.5) node {${\mathcal{G}}\left(
\begin{bmatrix}
1&2\\
3&4\\
\end{bmatrix}
\right)=$};

\draw[line width=1pt] (2.5,0.5) circle (2.9155);
\draw[line width=1pt] (2.5,-0.5) circle (2.9155);

\draw [<->] (-2,0) -- (7,0);
\draw [<->] (0,-4) -- (0,4);

\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\begin{scope}
\clip (0,-2.3) rectangle (0,2.3);
\end{scope}

\draw (-1.5,1.75) node {${\mathcal{G}}\left(
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}&2\\
-\frac{1}{2}&\frac{1}{2}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\right)=$};

\draw[line width=1pt] (0.5,1.25) circle (0.75);
\draw[line width=1pt] (0.5,-1.25) circle (0.75);

\draw [<->] (-1,0) -- (2,0);
\draw [<->] (0,-2.25) -- (0,2.25);

\end{tikzpicture}
    \caption{Illustration of Proposition~\ref{mat-2*2}}
    \label{mat_2_circ}
\end{figure}

\begin{proposition}
\label{mat-2*2}
Let $A=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a_1&b_1\\
b_2&a_2\\
\end{array}\right]\in \mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}$.
Then $\mathcal{G}(A)$ consists of two circles centered at $\left(\frac{a_1+a_2}{2},\pm\frac{b_1-b_2}{2}\right)$ with radius $\sqrt{\left(\frac{a_1-a_2}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{b_1+b_2}{2}\right)^2}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
x_\theta=
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos(\theta)\\\sin(\theta)
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^2,
\qquad
T\left(\begin{bmatrix}x_1\\x_2\end{bmatrix}\right)=
\begin{bmatrix}
x_1\\|x_2|
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
The stated result follows from
\[
{\mathcal{G}}^+(A)=\{z_A(x_\theta):\theta\in[0,2\pi)\}
\]
and the calculations
\begin{align*}
z_A(x_\theta)
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}\left(a_1+a_2+(a_1-a_2)\cos(2\theta)+(b_1+b_2)\sin(2\theta)\right)\\
\frac{1}{2}
\left|
-b_1+b_2+(b_1+b_2)\cos(2\theta)-(a_1-a_2)\sin(2\theta)
\right|
\end{bmatrix}\\
&=
T\bigg(
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}\\
-\frac{b_1-b_2}{2}
\end{bmatrix}+
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos(-2\theta)& -\sin (-2\theta)\\
\sin (-2\theta)&\cos(-2\theta)
\end{bmatrix}}_{\text{rotation by $-2\theta$}}
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{a_1-a_2}{2}\\
\frac{b_1+b_2}{2}
\end{bmatrix}\bigg).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
	    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.42\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
					\begin{scope}
						\clip (-1.25,-2.666666) rectangle (2.45,2.6666666);
						\fill[medgrey] (1,0) circle ({sqrt(5)});

					\end{scope}

					\fill[white] (5/8,0) circle (5/8);
					\fill[white] (-1,0) circle (1);
					\begin{scope}
						\clip (-1.25,-2.3) rectangle (2.5,2.3);
						\fill[white] (27/8,0) circle ({sqrt((19/8)^2+(1/2)^2)});
					\end{scope}

					\filldraw (-1,1) circle (1.0/1.2pt);
					\filldraw (0,0) circle (1.0/1.2pt);
					\filldraw (1,0.5) circle (1.0/1.2pt);
					\filldraw (2,2) circle (1.0/1.2pt);

					\filldraw (-1,-1) circle (1.0/1.2pt);
					\filldraw (0,-0) circle (1.0/1.2pt);
					\filldraw (1,-0.5) circle (1.0/1.2pt);
					\filldraw (2,-2) circle (1.0/1.2pt);

					\draw (-1.1,0.85) node {$\lambda_6$};
					\draw (1.2,0.4) node {$\lambda_2$};
					\draw (2.2,2.0) node {$\lambda_4$};
					\draw (-1.1,-0.85) node {$\lambda_7$};
					\draw (1.2,-0.4) node {$\lambda_3$};
					\draw (2.2,-2.0) node {$\lambda_5$};
					\draw (-0.12,0.15) node {$\lambda_1$};

					\draw[<->] (-1.2,0) -- (2.4,0);
				\end{tikzpicture}
        \caption{SRG of an $n\times n$ normal matrix with one distinct real eigenvalue and three distinct complex conjugate eigenvalue pairs.}
	\label{fig:normal-SRG}
    \end{subfigure}
    \hspace{0.13in}
    	    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.54\textwidth}
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
				\clip (-3.565,-3.2) rectangle (3.35,3.2);
				\draw (-3.2,0.15) node[] {$\lambda_1$};
				\fill[medgrey] (0,0) circle (3);

				\fill[white] (-2.5,0) circle (0.5);

				\draw (-2.2,0.15) node[] {$\lambda_2$};

				\fill[white] (-1.3,0) circle (0.7);

				\draw (-0.8,0.15) node[] {$\lambda_3$};

				\fill[white] (0,0) circle (0.6);

				\draw (0.4,0.15) node[] {$\lambda_4$};

				\fill[white] (0.9,0) circle (0.3);

				\draw (0.98,0.15) node[] {$\lambda_5$};

				\fill[white] (2.1,0) circle (0.9);

				\draw (2.8,0.15) node[] {$\lambda_6$};

				\filldraw (-3,0) circle ({1.0/1pt});
				\filldraw (-2,0) circle ({1.0/1pt});
				\filldraw (-0.6,0) circle ({1.0/1pt});
				\filldraw (0.6,0) circle ({1.0/1pt});
				\filldraw (1.2,0) circle ({1.0/1pt});
				\filldraw (3,0) circle ({1.0/1pt});

				\draw [<->] (-3.6,0) -- (3.3,0);

				\end{tikzpicture}
	        \caption{SRG of an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix with distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1<\lambda_2<\dots<\lambda_6$. \phantom{sadfiojasd} \phantom{oifjasdoifj} \phantom{aoisdfj} \phantom{oiasdj} \phantom{sadfiojasd} \phantom{oifjasdoifj} \phantom{aoisdfj} \phantom{oiasdj}}
	\label{fig:symm-srg}
    \end{subfigure}%
	\end{center}
	\caption{
	Illustration of Theorem~\ref{mat-main-thm2}.
	For normal matrices, multiplicity of eigenvalues do not affect the SRG.}
\end{figure}

\begin{proposition}
\label{mat_orth_inv}
A matrix's SRG is invariant under orthogonal similarity transforms.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $A\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$. Let $Q\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ be orthogonal.
For any nonzero $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$, we have
\begin{align*}
z_{QAQ^T}(x)
&=\frac{\|QAQ^Tx\|}{\| x\|}\exp[i\angle (QAQ^Tx,x)]\\
&=\frac{\|AQ^Tx\|}{\| x\|}\exp[i\angle (AQ^Tx,Q^Tx)]
=
z_A(Q^Tx).
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal{G}}(QAQ^T)
&=
\left\{z_{QAQ^T}(x),\overline{z_{QAQ^T}}(x):
x\in \mathbb{R}^n,\,x\ne 0
\right\}\\&
=
\left\{z_{A}(Qx),\overline{z_{A}}(Qx):
x\in \mathbb{R}^n,\,x\ne 0
\right\}\\&
=
\left\{z_{A}(x),\overline{z_{A}}(x):
x\in \mathbb{R}^n,\,x\ne 0
\right\}={\mathcal{G}}(A).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
\label{mat-main-thm2}
If $A$ is normal,
then $\mathcal{G}^+(A)=\mathrm{Poly}(\Lambda(A)\cap\mathbb{C}^+)$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
A normal matrix is orthogonally similar to the real block-diagonal matrix
\[
\begin{bmatrix
a_1&b_1&&&&&&\\
-b_1&a_1&&&&&&\\
&&\ddots&&&&&\\
&&&a_k&b_k&&&\\
&&&-b_k&a_k&&&\\
&&&&&\lambda_{k+1}&&\\
&&&&&&\ddots&\\
&&&&&&&\lambda_{m}\\
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
Propositions~\ref{mat-2*2} tells us
\[
{\mathcal{G}}^+\left(\begin{bmatrix}
a_j&b_j\\
-b_j&a_j\\
\end{bmatrix}\right)=
\{a_j+|b_j|i\}=\Lambda\left(\begin{bmatrix}
a_j&b_j\\
-b_j&a_j\\
\end{bmatrix}\right)\cap\mathbb{C}^+
\]
for $j=1,\dots,k$.
We conclude the stated result with Theorem~\ref{mat-main-thm2} and Proposition~\ref{mat_orth_inv}.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:symm-srg}
 Let $A\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ be symmetric, and let $\lambda_1<\lambda_2<\dots<\lambda_m$ be the distinct (real) eigenvalues of $A$.
If $m=1$, then $\mathcal{G}^+(A)=\{\lambda_1\}$.
If $m\ge 2$, then
\[
\mathcal{G}(A)=\mathrm{Disk}(\lambda_1,\lambda_m)\backslash\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{ m-1}\mathrm{Disk}^\circ(\lambda_i,\lambda_{i+1}).
\]
\end{corollary}

\bibliographystyle{siamplain}

Numerical Analysis (math.NA); Optimization and Control (math.OC)