Similarity - trace and determinant

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter circa415
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinant Trace
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the trace and determinant of matrices in the context of similarity. Participants explore whether having the same trace or determinant implies that two matrices are similar, using specific matrices as examples to illustrate their points.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that if two matrices are similar, they must have the same determinant and trace, but having the same determinant or trace does not imply similarity.
  • One participant provides a mathematical argument showing that if matrix A is similar to matrix B, then their determinants are equal.
  • Another participant mentions that two matrices can have the same trace and determinant but still not be similar, citing specific examples.
  • A participant introduces the cyclic trace property, stating that the trace remains invariant under cyclic permutations of matrices.
  • There is a discussion about scalar invariants of matrices with respect to similarity, noting that multiple independent invariants must be equal for similarity to hold.
  • One participant calculates the characteristic polynomials of the matrices and concludes that none of them are similar based on differing coefficients.
  • A later post humorously suggests that matrix A is similar to itself, reflecting on the earlier discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that similarity requires both the same trace and determinant, but they disagree on whether having the same trace or determinant alone is sufficient for similarity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these properties.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of similarity and invariants, as well as the unresolved nature of the implications of trace and determinant equality.

circa415
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
What exactly is the relationship between the trace/determinant of two matrices with regards to similarity. I always thought that if the trace was the same, then there is a possibility that the matrices are similar and if the determinant was the same, then the matrices are similar. On a recent exam we were given three matrices

A
1 0 1
2 3 5
0 2 -6

B
-4 3 4
0 1 2
0 0 1

C
0 0 2
0 4 1
3 5 -2

One of these matrices is similar to A.

I found det(a) = det (c) but trace (a) is not equal to trace (c). Det(B) is not equal to det (a) but trace (a) = Trace (b). Do I have my facts wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If two matrices are similar, then they have the same determinant, although it isn't necessarily true that if they have the same determinant, that they're similar. Anyways, this tells you that the matrix similar to A must have the same determinant as A. This is because if A is similar to B, then A = UBU-1 for some U, and:

det(A) = det(UBU-1) = det(U)det(B)det(U-1) = det(U)det(B)det(U)-1 = det(B)

I can't remember any special properties about traces and similarities, but the above should be enough to answer your question anyways.
 
If A and B are similar then tr(A)=tr(B) and det(A)=det(B) but absolutely no reverse deduction can be made.

[tex]\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1&1\\ 0&1 \end{array}\right)[/tex] and


[tex]\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1&0\\ 0&1 \end{array}\right)[/tex]

have the same determinant and the same trace (and indeed the same characteristic poly) but are not similar, indeed trace and det are data contained in the char poly and that is the same for all similar matrices. Simillarity is hard to classify simply but can be done with jordan blocks.


For AKG, matrices satisfy the cyclic trace property, and is perhaps weaker than being an invariant of the char poly in that it needs no manipulation other than by simply looking at the entries of the matrices: tr(ABC)=tr(BCA)=tr(CAB), and that tr(ABC)=/=tr(BAC). In fact it is even simpler than that now i come to think of it: tr(AB)=tr(BA)
 
Last edited:
Could you expand on that, matt? What is the cyclic trace property? I'm not sure what is meant by the stuff after that too:

"and is perhaps weaker than being an invariant of the char poly in that it needs no manipulation other than by simply looking at the entries of the matrices"

EDIT: Oh wait, I think I see. The cyclic trace property is that the trace is invariant even if you cycle the matrices A, B, and C around, so as you said:

Tr(ABC) = Tr(BCA) = TR(CAB)

I still don't get the stuff in quotes above though.
 
A scalar invarient of a matrix (with respect to similarity) is a function
f:nxn matricies->scalar
such that
f(AS)=f(SA)
for all nxn matrices A and all invertible nxn matrices S
So tr is an invariant
two matrices A & B are similar if
f(A)=f(B) for all invariants
It can be shown that a nxn matrix has n independent invariants thus one could chose their favorite set of n invariants and test those. Independent means that the invarians do not satisfy any relations.
common such sets include
-eigenvalues of A
-coefficients of the characteristic polinomial of A (which det(A) and tr(A) are)
-tr(A^k) k=1,...,nn

So to summerize (~ will mean similar)
A~B->tr(A)=tr(B)
but tr(A)=tr(B) does not imply similarity
n-1 more independent invariants need also be equal.
 
Well, we can shor Tr(AB)=tr(BA) by just working out what they are. usign summation convention they are

A_{ij}B_{ji} and B_{ij}A_{ji} which are obviously equal.

hence tr(AB)=tr(BA) is true for elementary reasons, ie we nned not talk abuot characteristic polys or sets of eigenvectors with multiplicity. which was how i first thought of provign the statement until i remembered you don't need to be a smart arse all the time. that's all i meant when i talked about elementary methods; i was talking to myself.
 
These are the characteristic polynomials of these matricies.
A^3+2A^2-31A^1+24A^0=0
B^3+2B^2-7B^1+4B^0=0
C^3-2C^2-19C^1+24C^0=0
Since none of these have the same coefficients no pair of these is similar.
 
circa415 said:
A
1 0 1
2 3 5
0 2 -6

B
-4 3 4
0 1 2
0 0 1

C
0 0 2
0 4 1
3 5 -2

One of these matrices is similar to A.
In view of the previous posts, the answer seems clear. A is similar to A.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K