How to show that commutative matrices form a group?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Robin04
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Group Matrices
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of how to demonstrate that the set of matrices that commute with a given matrix \( G \) forms a group. Participants explore definitions, properties, and potential operations related to group theory, particularly in the context of matrix multiplication and addition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest starting with the definition of a group to see if the matrices adhere to it.
  • There is a proposal to define the set \( H = \{ M \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n} | MG = GM \} \) as a group, with discussions on its properties.
  • One participant questions how the sum of two matrices that commute with \( G \) also commutes with \( G \), expressing uncertainty about the closure property under addition.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of an "aggressive element," later clarified as an "absorbing element," and discusses its implications in the context of matrices.
  • Some participants explore the implications of \( G \) being the zero matrix or non-invertible, questioning whether the set of commuting matrices can form a group under multiplication.
  • There is a distinction made between groups under multiplication versus addition, with some participants arguing that the set of matrices commuting with \( G \) may not form a group under multiplication if \( G \) is not invertible.
  • Questions arise regarding the necessity of \( G \) being in the set of matrices with nonzero determinant for the group properties to hold.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the set of matrices commuting with \( G \) forms a group under multiplication or addition. There is no consensus on the implications of \( G \) being invertible or non-invertible, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific properties required for the set to be classified as a group.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include unclear definitions of terms such as "aggressive element" and the implications of matrix properties (e.g., invertibility) on group structure. The discussion also highlights the need for further clarification on the operations and sets involved in defining the group.

  • #31
I agree that the problem wasn't specific enough because I didn't really understand it myself either. Now I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture about it thanks to this discussion. First I didn't understand why do I have to choose between additive and multiplicative groups but now I see why is this a question. This wasn't specified by my teacher but I have a partial answer as I worked a bit on the problem.

I started with simple 2x2 matrices. Let's say we have ## G = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\c & d \end{pmatrix}##, where ##a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}##.
We're looking for all possible ## M = \begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\\gamma & \delta \end{pmatrix}##, ##\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta \in \mathbb{R}## such that ##GM = MG##
I did both multiplications, set up a system of equations and solved it.
##\alpha = \frac{\gamma (a-d)}{c}##
##\beta = \frac{\gamma b}{c}##
##\gamma \in \mathbb{R}##
##\delta = 0##
These ##M## matrices form a group with addition. Now what I don't know is how to generalize this to ##n \times n## matrices and I'm not sure if they form a group with other operations too. They don't with multiplication.
Also ##M## cannot be equal to ##G## but ##GG=GG## is necessarily true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Given any matrix ##G## and a set ##X:=\{\,M\,|\,MG=GM\,\}##. Now what is ##(M-N)\cdot G - G\cdot (M-N)## and what does this mean for the properties of ##X\,?##
 
  • #33
Robin04 said:
I started with simple 2x2 matrices. Let's say we have ## G = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\c & d \end{pmatrix}##, where ##a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}##.
We're looking for all possible ## M = \begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\\gamma & \delta \end{pmatrix}##, ##\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta \in \mathbb{R}## such that ##GM = MG##
I did both multiplications, set up a system of equations and solved it.
##\alpha = \frac{\gamma (a-d)}{c}##
##\beta = \frac{\gamma b}{c}##
##\gamma \in \mathbb{R}##
##\delta = 0##
These ##M## matrices form a group with addition. Now what I don't know is how to generalize this to ##n \times n## matrices and I'm not sure if they form a group with other operations too. They don't with multiplication.
Also ##M## cannot be equal to ##G## but ##GG=GG## is necessarily true.

There's something not right here. How can we need ##\delta = 0##? The identity matrix, for which ##\delta = 1##, commutes with everything. And, how can we have "##M## cannot be equal to ##G##"? By your own analysis ##G## always commutes with itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
  • #34
fresh_42 said:
Given any matrix ##G## and a set ##X:=\{\,M\,|\,MG=GM\,\}##. Now what is ##(M-N)\cdot G - G\cdot (M-N)## and what does this mean for the properties of ##X\,?##
##(M-N)\cdot G - G\cdot (M-N) = GN-NG##. But what is ##N##? Element of ##X## or an arbitrary matrix?

PeroK said:
There's something not right here. How can we need ##\delta = 0##? The identity matrix, for which ##\delta = 1##, commutes with everything. And, how can we have "##M## cannot be equal to ##G##"? By your own analysis ##G## always commutes with itself.
You're right. I was too tired last night so I used a linear equation solver and it seems it has some bugs when it comes to dealing with parameters. I solved it on my own and it seems I got it right this time.

##\alpha \in \mathbb{R}##
##\beta \in \mathbb{R} ##
##\gamma = \beta \frac{c}{b}##
##\delta = \beta\frac{d-a}{b}+\alpha##
These matrices form a group too, and ##I,G## are also in it.
How to generalize this to nxn matrices?
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Robin04 said:
##(M-N)\cdot G - G\cdot (M-N) = GN-NG##. But what is ##N##? Element of ##X## or an arbitrary matrix?You're right. I was too tired last night so I used a linear equation solver and it seems it has some bugs when it comes to dealing with parameters. I solved it on my own and it seems I got it right this time.

##\alpha \in \mathbb{R}##
##\beta \in \mathbb{R} ##
##\gamma = \beta \frac{c}{b}##
##\delta = \beta\frac{d-a}{b}+\alpha##
These matrices form a group too, and ##I,G## are also in it.
How to generalize this to nxn matrices?

I'd still question what happens if ##b = 0## in those equations.

In general, solving equations for each matrix entry is not a very efficient way to demonstrate the properties of a matrix. I think you need to start considering the properties of the matrices involved more directly.

Are you learning this on your own?
 
  • #36
Robin04 said:
##(M-N)\cdot G - G\cdot (M-N) = GN-NG##. But what is ##N##? Element of ##X## or an arbitrary matrix?
Both have been meant to commutate with ##G##, so ##M,N\in X##.
The point is, that this is sufficient to show what you need: ##0\in X\; , \; -N \in X\; , \;M+N\in X## and even ##G \in X##, although not of interest for the group property.
Next it shows, that all these have nothing to do with a specific dimension or the solution of your system of linear equations. All you additionally need is that matrix addition is associative.
 
  • #37
Robin04 said:
How to generalize this to nxn matrices?

Forget about the particulars of matrices. What you want to prove holds for any mathematical system that obeys the associative law (posts #12, #32)
 
  • #38
I would also learn how to write matrix multiplication using Summation notation.
 
  • #39
Robin04 said:
##(M-N)\cdot G - G\cdot (M-N) = GN-NG##. But what is ##N##? Element of ##X## or an arbitrary matrix?You're right. I was too tired last night so I used a linear equation solver and it seems it has some bugs when it comes to dealing with parameters. I solved it on my own and it seems I got it right this time.

##\alpha \in \mathbb{R}##
##\beta \in \mathbb{R} ##
##\gamma = \beta \frac{c}{b}##
##\delta = \beta\frac{d-a}{b}+\alpha##
These matrices form a group too, and ##I,G## are also in it.
How to generalize this to nxn matrices?
But this too seems problematic. If ##\beta ## is in ##\mathbb R## then ##\gamma ## can be anything.
 
  • #40
The more useful proposition is that the set X_G of nxn matrices which commute with a specific nxn matrix G form a ring under matrix addition and multiplication. Now this ring is a subring of the ring of all nxn matrices, so we only have to check closure of addition and multiplication and that X_G contains identities and additive inverses. This requires proving the following:

1) If M and N commute with G then so does M + N.
2) If M and N commute with G then so does MN.
3) The nxn zero matrix commutes with G.
4) The nxn identity matrix commutes with G.
5) If M commutes with G then so does -M.

All of these can be proved directly from ring axioms and the definition of "commute". Thus (1) follows from distributivity of multiplication over addition, and (2) follows from associativity of multiplication.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
755
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K