Characteristic Equations and Commutativity

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter A.Magnus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Characteristic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the characteristic polynomials of the products of two matrices, $MN$ and $NM$, are the same for matrices of the same size. The conversation explores both cases where the matrices are invertible and non-invertible, delving into various approaches and proofs related to linear algebra concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if $M$ and $N$ are invertible, the proof of the equality of characteristic polynomials is straightforward using determinants.
  • Others argue that for non-invertible matrices, the proof requires considering perturbations of the matrices, such as $M+tI$, and taking limits as $t$ approaches zero.
  • A participant presents a case analysis based on the invertibility of $MN - \lambda I$ and $NM - \lambda I$, detailing algebraic manipulations to show that if one is invertible, so is the other.
  • Another participant introduces a block matrix approach to illustrate the relationship between the determinants of $MN$ and $NM$, emphasizing the use of partition matrices.
  • There is a question raised about the determinant of a block matrix and its relation to the non-commutative property of matrix multiplication, indicating a potential misunderstanding or clarification needed regarding the determinant's calculation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various methods to approach the problem, with no consensus on a single proof method for the non-invertible case. Disagreements exist regarding the interpretation of matrix properties and the implications of block matrix determinants.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the invertibility of matrices and the conditions under which certain proofs hold. Some mathematical steps and definitions are not fully resolved, particularly regarding the behavior of eigenvalues and the limits involved in the proofs.

A.Magnus
Messages
138
Reaction score
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
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)
 
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 $P$.
 
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
 
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
 
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)
 
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
 
That is correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K