How can we prove that a nxn real matrix A is a root of a given polynomial?

  • Thread starter Thread starter universedrill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving properties of an nxn real matrix A in relation to a polynomial, specifically addressing the Cayley-Hamilton theorem and implications of matrix powers. The participants explore the relationship between the determinant of a matrix and its roots, as well as the behavior of nilpotent matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss proving that a matrix A is a root of a polynomial defined by its determinant. There is an attempt to connect this to the Cayley-Hamilton theorem and explore implications for nilpotent matrices. Questions arise regarding the clarity of certain steps and the necessity of using established theorems.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering various approaches and questioning the clarity of certain concepts. Some suggest using the Cayley-Hamilton theorem as a foundation for further proofs, while others express uncertainty about the connections being made. There is no explicit consensus on the best approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion regarding notation and the implications of using certain theorems. There is also mention of the difficulty of proving the Cayley-Hamilton theorem based on prior coursework.

universedrill
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


1) Prove that: nxn real matrix A is a root of f(X)= a[n].X^n+...+a[0].I, where a[n],...,a[0] are coefficients of the polynomial P(t)= det [A-t.I]
2) Let 5x5 real matrix A be satisfied: A^2008 = 0. Prove that: A^5=0.

2. The attempt at a solution
I tried to solve problem 2 with an general idea: nxn matrix A: A^m=0 (m>n). Prove: A^n=0.
Let P(t)=det [A-t.I]. So, deg P(t)=n, t is a real number.
Let t is a root of P(t), we get:
det[A-tI]=0 -> the equation: (A-tI)X=0 has a root X which is different from 0
-> AX = tIX=tX -> A(AX)=A(tX)
->A^2.X=t(AX)=t(tX)=t^2.X ->... -> A^m.X=t^m.X
Because X differ from 0 and A^m =0, we find out t^m =0 -> t=0
Thus, P(t)= t^n.
Now, the important thing is proving problem 1. I remember that the problem 1 seem to be a theorem? Can you help me prove that, or find meterials saying that? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) In other words, they are asking for a proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem? That I believe should be rather difficult, since proof of this theorem was omitted when I took my intermediate linear algebra course this semester.

2) Use result 1 to prove it. Instead of evaluating det(A-tI), what is det(A^2008 -tI) ?

P.S. Use of square brackets [ ] can be confusing. Use the normal parantheses instead.
 
Thanks, but
Defennder said:
2) Instead of evaluating det(A-tI), what is det(A^2008 -tI) ?
I don't understand clearly what you mean.
And, is there any solution where theorem 1 isn't used for problem 2?
 
Well, it appears that the problem has been set up in such a way such that you can use the result of theorem 1 (even if you do not know how to prove it) to do 2). And I don't know which part of what I wrote you do not understand. What don't you understand about finding det(A^2008 -tI) ?
 
There are a few different methods to prove (1). Have you studied adjugate matrices yet? If so, can you reason that [itex]\text{adj} (A-tI_n)[/itex] exists? If so, what can you say about [itex](A-tI_n) \cdot \text{adj} (A-tI_n)[/itex]?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K