1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cayley Hamilton Theorem

  1. Nov 10, 2012 #1
    In my linear algebra course, we just finished proving the cayley hamilton theorem (if p(x) = det (A - xI), then p(A) = 0).

    The theorem seems obvious: if you plug in A into p, you get det (A-AI) = det (0) = 0. But, of course, you can't do that (this is especially clear when you consider what A-xI looks like... you can't subtract matrices from real numbers)

    Is there any way to salvage the idea of just plugging in A? or is it just a coincidence that it seems so obvious?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 10, 2012 #2

    We know p(x) is the characteristic polynomial of A. The meaning of p(A) is to take the input A into the characteristic polynomial, not into the formula d(A - xI). Also, note that the 0 in the expression p(A) = 0 isn't referring to a scalar 0, its referring to the zero matrix.
     
  4. Nov 10, 2012 #3
    Yes, thank you.

    I understand that. But I wasn't sure if it was just a coincidence that the theorem seemed so obvious when we considered the characteristic polynomial to be det (A-xI), or if there was some way to make rigorous the idea of plugging in A.
     
  5. Nov 10, 2012 #4
    Personally, I find the idea of the notation p(A) fairly loose in terms of rigor, since the definition of p as a function has a domain of the reals. The most amount of rigor you can put in plugging in A is just by defining what it exactly means to plug in A and that is to plug it into the characteristic polynomial expression.
     
  6. Nov 10, 2012 #5
    If ##p(x) = c_{n}x^{n} + ... + c_{1}x + c_{0}## where ##p## is defined from ##\mathbb{R}## to ##\mathbb{R}## and ##c_{i} \in \mathbb{R}##, then ##p(A): \{ \text{m x m matrices} \} \rightarrow \{ \text{m x m matrices} \}## is defined by ##p(A) = c_{n}A^{n} + ... + c_{1}A + c_{0}I##. ... I'm completely happy with that.

    I must not have been clear in my question. I'm asking for a proof using the idea of 'plugging A into det (A - xI) or an explanation of why there isn't one, not an clarification of the statement of the theorem.
     
  7. Nov 10, 2012 #6

    Ray Vickson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Well, for one thing, p(A) is a matrix (that happens to have all entries = 0), while det(I.A - A) is a scalar (that happens to equal zero).

    More generally, suppose we have p(x) = det(xB + C) = det(Bx + C) for nxn matrices B and C, and suppose we happen to have p(A) = 0. Does it follow that det(AB + C) = 0 or that det(BA + C) = 0? Conversely, if either det(AB + C) = 0 or det(BA + C) = 0, does it follow that p(A) = 0? I am not 100% sure of the answers, but I have my doubts that any of the answers is "yes". (If this turns out to be right, then it would be a sheer accident that you happen to get the correct result that p(A) = 0 in the special case that B = I and C = A.)

    RGV
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook