In page 14, example 2.1 of these notes https://www.math.upenn.edu/~kazdan/japan/japan.pdf on geometric analysis we note that the symbol of a second order differential operator $$Pu = \sum_{i,j} a^{ij}(x) \frac{\partial ^2 u}{\partial x_i \partial x_j} + \sum_j b^j(x) \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j} + c(x)u$$ is given by the $1 \times 1$ matrix $$\sigma_\xi(P;x) = -\sum_{i,j} a^{ij}(x) \xi_i \xi_j.$$ It then says that $P$ is elliptic at $x$ if and only if the matrix $(a^{ij}(x))$ is positive (or negative) definite.
I have thought about this for a few hours and do not see where it comes from. Ellipticity means that the symbol is invertible. But invertibility is quite different from positive-definiteness.
Honestly, I do not see why $\sigma_\xi$ is a $1 \times 1$ matrix either given that there are covectors of different induces $\xi_i$ and $\xi_j$ that show up in the formula.
The symbol is a real number, which they think of as a 1x1 matrix. As a mapping it is invertible if the symbol is not zero for all $x$ and $\xi$. If $a^{ij}$ is not positive or negative definite, then it is possible to find nonzero $\xi$ for which the symbol is zero (i.e., not invertible).
For example, if $a^{ij}$ is not positive or negative definite, take $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ for which the symbol is positive and negative, respectively, and consider the line between $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$. By the mean value property, somewhere on this line you will find a $\xi$ that makes the symbol zero. You can move $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ slightly, if necessary, to ensure $\xi\neq 0$ (by continuity).