3
$\begingroup$

Let $A \in \mathcal{M}_n (\mathbb{C})$. Over $\mathbb{C}$, show that the following two statements are equivalent:

  1. Characteristic polynomial of a $A$ agrees with its minimal polynomial;
  2. All matrices that commutes with $A$ is a polynomial of $A$.

For 1 > 2, from 1 I can only get that $A$ has a Jordan canonical form that each eigenvalue has only one Jordan block (i.e. maximum size), and I have no idea afterwards.

2 > 1 is a complete no-go for me.

Any hints or solutions are appreciated.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Agrees with = equal to? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2021 at 13:12
  • $\begingroup$ yes, equal to the minimal polynomial of itself. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2021 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? Minimal polynomial = chratacteristic polynomial $\iff$ distinct eigenvalues associated with distinct Jordan blocks? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2021 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, that isn't a duplicate because you still have to show "$ \Leftrightarrow$ commutes condition". But that should give you a start. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2021 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ I do saw that, but the more of the problem is how I connect this to the 2nd point. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2021 at 14:35

2 Answers 2

4
+50
$\begingroup$

$(2)\to (1)$ Suppose for the sake of contradiction that (1) does not hold. Let $J=T^{-1}AT$ be a Jordan canonical form of $A$ and $T$ be a non-singular matrix. By Claim from Ben Grossmann’s answer, $J$ has distinct Jordan cells $J_1$ and $J_2$ corresponding to the same eigenvalue $\lambda$. Let $R_k$ be the set of rows occupied by $J_k$ for $k=1,2$. Let $D=\|d_{ij}\|$ be a diagonal matrix such that $d_{ii}$ equals $1$, if $i\in R_1$, and equals $0$, otherwise. Let $B=\|b_{ij}\|$ be any polynomial of $J$. Then $b_{ii}=b_{jj}$ for any $i\in R_1$ and $j\in R_2$, so $D$ is not a polynomial of $J$. On the other hand, it is easy to check that $DJ=JD$. Then a matrix $TDT^{-1}$ commutes with $A$, but $TDT^{-1}$ is not a polynomial of $A$, a contradiction.

$(1)\to (2)$ Gerry Myerson proved here that it suffices to show that there exists a vector $v$ such that vectors $A^0v,A^1v,\dots,A^{n-1}v$ are linearly independent. Let $$\chi(x) = (x - \lambda_1)^{d_1} \cdots (x - \lambda_k)^{d_k}$$ be the characteristic polynomial of $A$ and $\lambda_i$’s are distinct. For each $i=1,\dots, k$ put $\chi_i(x)=\chi(x)/(x-\lambda_i)$ and $\bar\chi_i(x)=\chi(x)/(x-\lambda_i)^{d_i}$. Since $\chi_i(x)$ is not a minimal polynomial of $A$, there exists a vector $w_i$ such that $\chi_i(A)w_i\ne 0$. Let $\varphi_i(x)$ be a polynomial of minimal degree such that $\varphi_i(A)w_i=0$. The minimality of degree of $\varphi_i(x)$ easily implies that $\varphi_i(x)|\chi(x)$. Put $v_i=\bar\chi_i(A)w_i$ and $v=v_1+\dots+v_k$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that there exists a polynomial $\psi(x)$ with minimal degree $\deg \psi(x) <\deg \chi(x)$ such that $\psi(A)v=0$. The minimality of degree of $\psi(x)$ easily implies that $\psi(x)|\chi(x)$. Since $\deg\psi(x)<\deg\chi(x)$, there exists $i=1,\dots, k$ such that $\psi(x)|\chi_i(x)$. Then $$0=\chi_i(A)v=\chi_i(A)v_i=\chi_i(A)\bar\chi_i(A)w_i.$$ The minimality of degree of $\varphi_i(x)$ easily implies that $\varphi_i(x)| \chi_i(x)\bar\chi_i(x)$. Since $\varphi_i(x)|\chi(x)$, we have that $\varphi_i(x)|(\chi_i(x)\bar\chi_i(x),\chi(x))=\chi_i(x)$. But then $\chi_i(A)w_i=\varphi_i(A)w_i=0$, a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why is $$\chi_i(A)v = \chi_i(A) v_i \quad ?$$ And what is the possible intuition behind these construction? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 22, 2021 at 7:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry for the ping, but I want to really make sure that I understand before sending out the 50 points. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 22, 2021 at 18:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @macton The identity $\chi_i(A)v=\chi_i(A)v_i$ follows from the identity $\chi_i(A)v_j=0$ when $i\neq j$. To see why this latter identity is true, note that $\chi_i(A)v_j=\chi_i(A)\bar{\chi}_j(A)w_j$ ; now the polynomial $P=\chi_i\bar{\chi}_j$ is a multiple of $\chi$, so $P(A)=0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2021 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ @EwanDelanoy got it, thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24, 2021 at 7:06
3
$\begingroup$

I just inspected the proof provided by Alex. The (2) => (1) direction seems correct. But the direction (1) => (2) seems confusing. I think the proof provided here is to prove that there is no polynomial $f$ with degree strictly less than the degree of the minimal polynomial of $A$ satisfying $f(A)=O$. But the original problem (1) => (2) remains unsolved.

We should construct a cyclic vector from the assumption that (1) is true.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.