Characteristic Equations and Commutativity

In summary, the characteristic polynomials of two matrices $M$ and $N$ of the same size are the same for $MN$ and $NM$. If both $M$ and $N$ are invertible, the proof is straightforward. However, if one or both are non-invertible, a different approach is needed. One possible proof is to show that if $MN - \lambda I$ is invertible, then so is $NM - \lambda I$. This is done by considering two cases, $\lambda = 0$ and $\lambda \neq 0$, and using algebraic manipulation and the fact that all invertible matrices are dense in the space of all matrices.
  • #1
A.Magnus
138
0
How do I go about proving that for two matrices of same size, $M$ and $N$, that the characteristic polynomials of $MN$ and $NM$ are the same? If $M$ and $N$ are inversible, then the proof are very straightforward, for example, I can have

$|MN - \lambda I| = |MN - \lambda MM^{-1}| = |M(N - \lambda M^{-1})| = |M||N - \lambda M^{-1}| = |N - \lambda M^{-1}||M| = |(N - \lambda M_{-1})M| = |NM - \lambda M^{-1}M| = |NM - \lambda I|,$

etc. But if $M$ and $N$ are not inversible, then the proof above does not work. I found discussion in this link to be very relevant to my problem, but looks like they are using high tools that I am not familiar with. Is there any simple proof out there that I can digest well? As always, any gracious helping hand would be very much appreciated. Thank you. ~MA
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
MaryAnn said:
How do I go about proving that for two matrices of same size, $M$ and $N$, that the characteristic polynomials of $MN$ and $NM$ are the same? If $M$ and $N$ are inversible, then the proof are very straightforward, for example, I can have

$|MN - \lambda I| = |MN - \lambda MM^{-1}| = |M(N - \lambda M^{-1})| = |M||N - \lambda M^{-1}| = |N - \lambda M^{-1}||M| = |(N - \lambda M_{-1})M| = |NM - \lambda M^{-1}M| = |NM - \lambda I|,$

etc. But if $M$ and $N$ are not inversible, then the proof above does not work. I found discussion in this link to be very relevant to my problem, but looks like they are using high tools that I am not familiar with. Is there any simple proof out there that I can digest well? As always, any gracious helping hand would be very much appreciated. Thank you. ~MA

Hey ~MA! ;)

Suppose $M$ is not invertible, then $(M+tI)$ is invertible for all sufficiently small values of $t$ that are non-zero (proof below).
So $(M+tI)N$ and $N(M+tI)$ have the same characteristic polynomial.
Now take the limit for $t\to 0$. (Thinking)

That leaves the question whether $M+tI$ is indeed invertible for all sufficiently small values of $t$ that are non-zero.
(That's what they mean when they say that all invertible nxn matrices are dense in the space of all nxn matrices.)
Consider that a matrix $M$ is non-invertible iff there is at least one non-zero vector $v$ such that $Mv=0$.
That means $0$ is an eigenvalue.
Since $(M+tI)v = Mv+tv=tv$, it follows that $t \ne 0$ is then an eigenvalue of $(M+tI)$.
Furthermore, as long as $|t|$ is smaller than the magnitude of the smallest non-zero eigenvalue, it follows in the same fashion that all eigenvalues are non-zero.
Therefore $(M+tI)$ is invertible for all sufficiently small values of $t$ that are non-zero. (Nerd)
 
  • #3
MaryAnn said:
How do I go about proving that for two matrices of same size, $M$ and $N$, that the characteristic polynomials of $MN$ and $NM$ are the same? If $M$ and $N$ are inversible, then the proof are very straightforward, for example, I can have

$|MN - \lambda I| = |MN - \lambda MM^{-1}| = |M(N - \lambda M^{-1})| = |M||N - \lambda M^{-1}| = |N - \lambda M^{-1}||M| = |(N - \lambda M_{-1})M| = |NM - \lambda M^{-1}M| = |NM - \lambda I|,$

etc. But if $M$ and $N$ are not inversible, then the proof above does not work. I found discussion in this link to be very relevant to my problem, but looks like they are using high tools that I am not familiar with. Is there any simple proof out there that I can digest well? As always, any gracious helping hand would be very much appreciated. Thank you. ~MA
We want to show that if $MN - \lambda I$ is invertible then so is $NM - \lambda I$. There are two cases to look at.

Case 1: $\lambda = 0$. Here, the result follows from looking at the determinant. If $MN$ is invertible then $0 \ne |MN| = |M||N| = |N||M| =|NM|$, so that $NM$ is invertible.

Case 2: $\lambda\ne0$. Here, the result follows from a crafty piece of algebraic trickery. Suppose that $MN - \lambda I$ is invertible, and let $P = \lambda^{-1}(N(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M- I).$ Then $$\begin{aligned} (NM - \lambda I)P &= \lambda^{-1}(NM - \lambda I) (N(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M - I) \\ &= \lambda^{-1}NMN(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M - N(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M - \lambda^{-1}NM + I \\ &= \lambda^{-1}N(MN - \lambda I)(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M - \lambda^{-1}NM + I \\ &= \lambda^{-1}NM - \lambda^{-1}NM + I \\ &= I.\end{aligned}$$ A similar calculation shows that $P(NM - \lambda I) = I$. It follows that $NM - \lambda I$ has an inverse, namely $P$.
 
  • #4
I like Serena said:
Hey ~MA! ;)

Suppose $M$ is not invertible, then $(M+tI)$ is invertible for all sufficiently small values of $t$ that are non-zero (proof below).
So $(M+tI)N$ and $N(M+tI)$ have the same characteristic polynomial.
Now take the limit for $t\to 0$. (Thinking)

That leaves the question whether $M+tI$ is indeed invertible for all sufficiently small values of $t$ that are non-zero.
(That's what they mean when they say that all invertible nxn matrices are dense in the space of all nxn matrices.)
Consider that a matrix $M$ is non-invertible iff there is at least one non-zero vector $v$ such that $Mv=0$.
That means $0$ is an eigenvalue.
Since $(M+tI)v = Mv+tv=tv$, it follows that $t \ne 0$ is then an eigenvalue of $(M+tI)$.
Furthermore, as long as $|t|$ is smaller than the magnitude of the smallest non-zero eigenvalue, it follows in the same fashion that all eigenvalues are non-zero.
Therefore $(M+tI)$ is invertible for all sufficiently small values of $t$ that are non-zero. (Nerd)

I am sorry, I am coming here late. But as always, thanks for your gracious helping hand! ~MA
 
  • #5
Opalg said:
We want to show that if $MN - \lambda I$ is invertible then so is $NM - \lambda I$. There are two cases to look at.

Case 1: $\lambda = 0$. Here, the result follows from looking at the determinant. If $MN$ is invertible then $0 \ne |MN| = |M||N| = |N||M| =|NM|$, so that $NM$ is invertible.

Case 2: $\lambda\ne0$. Here, the result follows from a crafty piece of algebraic trickery. Suppose that $MN - \lambda I$ is invertible, and let $P = \lambda^{-1}(N(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M- I).$ Then $$\begin{aligned} (NM - \lambda I)P &= \lambda^{-1}(NM - \lambda I) (N(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M - I) \\ &= \lambda^{-1}NMN(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M - N(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M - \lambda^{-1}NM + I \\ &= \lambda^{-1}N(MN - \lambda I)(MN - \lambda I)^{-1}M - \lambda^{-1}NM + I \\ &= \lambda^{-1}NM - \lambda^{-1}NM + I \\ &= I.\end{aligned}$$ A similar calculation shows that $P(NM - \lambda I) = I$. It follows that $NM - \lambda I$ has an inverse, namely $P$.

Thanks to Opalg for your gracious helping hand. Now from this link I got another great hint, which is based on block (partition) matrices:

If $A$, $B$, $I$ and $0$ are all $n \times n$ matrices, and if
$$ M =
\begin{pmatrix}
I &0\\
-A &I\\
\end{pmatrix},
\text{ and }
N =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda I &B\\
\lambda A & \lambda I\\
\end{pmatrix},
$$
then
$$ MN =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda I &B\\
0 &\lambda I - AB\\
\end{pmatrix},
\text{ and }
NM =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda I - BA &B\\
0 & \lambda I\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Then based on $|M||N| = |MN| = |NM| = |N||M|$, we are able to prove our case. (But having found this link does not diminish my gratitude to all who have helped me graciously! Thanks again! ~MA)

While you are here, I have one question about multiplication of block matrices, if you don't mind: The determinant of |NM| is
$$\begin{vmatrix}
\lambda I - BA &B\\
0 & \lambda I\\
\end{vmatrix}
= (\lambda I - BA) \lambda I$$
and it is not $ \lambda I (\lambda I - BA)$, am I not correct? I am asking this question because matrix does not have commutative property, even though eventually the two come out to the same result. Please let me know and thank you again for your helping hand. ~MA
 
  • #6
MaryAnn said:
Thanks to Opalg for your gracious helping hand. Now from this link I got another great hint, which is based on block (partition) matrices:

If $A$, $B$, $I$ and $0$ are all $n \times n$ matrices, and if
$$ M =
\begin{pmatrix}
I &0\\
-A &I\\
\end{pmatrix},
\text{ and }
N =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda I &B\\
\lambda A & \lambda I\\
\end{pmatrix},
$$
then
$$ MN =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda I &B\\
0 &\lambda I - AB\\
\end{pmatrix},
\text{ and }
NM =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda I - BA &B\\
0 & \lambda I\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Then based on $|M||N| = |MN| = |NM| = |N||M|$, we are able to prove our case. (But having found this link does not diminish my gratitude to all who have helped me graciously! Thanks again! ~MA)

That gives us a third way to prove it! (Mmm)

While you are here, I have one question about multiplication of block matrices, if you don't mind: The determinant of |NM| is
$$\begin{vmatrix}
\lambda I - BA &B\\
0 & \lambda I\\
\end{vmatrix}
= (\lambda I - BA) \lambda I$$
and it is not $ \lambda I (\lambda I - BA)$, am I not correct? I am asking this question because matrix does not have commutative property, even though eventually the two come out to the same result. Please let me know and thank you again for your helping hand. ~MA

Shouldn't that be:
$$\begin{vmatrix}
\lambda I - BA &B\\
0 & \lambda I\\
\end{vmatrix}
= |\lambda I - BA| \cdot |\lambda I| = |\lambda I| \cdot |\lambda I - BA|$$
(Wondering)
 
  • #7
I like Serena said:
That gives us a third way to prove it! (Mmm)

Shouldn't that be:
$$\begin{vmatrix}
\lambda I - BA &B\\
0 & \lambda I\\
\end{vmatrix}
= |\lambda I - BA| \cdot |\lambda I| = |\lambda I| \cdot |\lambda I - BA|$$
(Wondering)

You maybe right because determinant is scalar and it enjoys commutative property, but I would like to know multiplication of block matrices in general case, for example,

$$\begin{pmatrix}
A &B\\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
C\\
D\\
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
AC + BD
\end{pmatrix}
\neq
\begin{pmatrix}
CA + DB\\
\end{pmatrix},$$

am I not correct? I am referring to the non-commutative property of matrix. Any idea? Thanks to all for your attention and gracious help! ~MA
 
  • #8
That is correct.
 

1. What is a characteristic equation?

A characteristic equation is a polynomial equation that is used to find the eigenvalues of a matrix. It is typically represented as det(A - λI) = 0, where A is the matrix, λ is the eigenvalue, and I is the identity matrix.

2. Why are characteristic equations important?

Characteristic equations are important because they allow us to find the eigenvalues of a matrix, which can then be used to find the eigenvectors and diagonalize the matrix. This is useful in many areas of mathematics and science, including linear algebra, differential equations, and quantum mechanics.

3. What is commutativity?

Commutativity refers to the property of two elements in a set being able to be rearranged without changing the result of an operation. In terms of matrices, it means that two matrices can be multiplied in any order and still result in the same product.

4. Why is commutativity important in matrix operations?

Commutativity is important in matrix operations because it allows us to manipulate and rearrange matrices without changing the end result. This makes solving equations and performing calculations much easier and more efficient.

5. Can any matrix be commutative?

No, not all matrices are commutative. In order for two matrices to be commutative, they must be square matrices with the same dimensions and their corresponding elements must commute. This means that A*B = B*A for all elements in the matrices. Most matrices are not commutative, but some special cases such as diagonal matrices and scalar multiples of the identity matrix are commutative.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
625
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
827
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
877
Back
Top