Matrices Commuting with Matrix Exponential

  • I
  • Thread starter Isaac0427
  • Start date
  • #1
680
144

Summary:

Does ##\left[ A, e^B \right]=0## imply ##[A,B]=0##?

Main Question or Discussion Point

The summary pretty much explains my question. I know that ##\left[ A, e^B \right]=0## if ##[A,B]=0## (and can prove it), but I can't figure out how to prove if it is or is not an "if and only if" statement.

Thanks in advance!
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi

Answers and Replies

  • #2
13,252
10,213
I would look for a counterexample. A nilpotent matrix ##B## of degree three or four perhaps. You need at least the square for a counterexample.
 
  • #3
mathman
Science Advisor
7,840
441
I haven't much background in matrix theory. However wouldn't ##[A,B]=0## imply ##[A,e^B]=A##? Expand ##e^B## in power series and the first term ends up as ##[A,I]##.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
  • #4
680
144
I haven't much background in matrix theory. However wouldn't ##[A,B]=0## imply ##[A,e^B]=A##? Expand ##e^B## in power series and the first term ends up as ##[A,I]##.
Right, but all matrices commute with the identity, so ##[A,I]=0##.
 
  • #5
680
144
I would look for a counterexample. A nilpotent matrix ##B## of degree three or four perhaps. You need at least the square for a counterexample.
Ok, I'm working on that. So I am assuming that my statement is not "if and only if." What conditions must be present for ##\left[ A, e^B \right]=0## to imply ##[A,B]=0##? Also, while a general answer is nice, I'm really only interested in skew-Hermitian matrices, if that makes it any easier.
 
  • #6
13,252
10,213
Well, ##e^B## is unitary then, but I don't see how this helps. It only makes the search for a counterexample more complicated since you cannot just use upper triangular matrices for ##B##.

Where did you get the element ##[\mathfrak{g},G]## from?
 
  • #7
13,252
10,213
I would start with ##n=2## and ##B## diagonal with different eigenvalues. Something like ##e^B=\operatorname{diag}(e^{\pi i},e^{3\pi i})## and then look for an ##A## which does not commute with ##\operatorname{diag}(\pi i, 3\pi i).##
 
  • #8
680
144
I would start with ##n=2## and ##B## diagonal with different eigenvalues. Something like ##e^B=\operatorname{diag}(e^{\pi i},e^{3\pi i})## and then look for an ##A## which does not commute with ##\operatorname{diag}(\pi i, 3\pi i).##
Everything that I can think of that does commute with ##e^B=\operatorname{diag}(e^{\pi i},e^{3\pi i})## also commutes with ##\operatorname{diag}(\pi i, 3\pi i).##

Well, eB is unitary then, but I don't see how this helps. It only makes the search for a counterexample more complicated since you cannot just use upper triangular matrices for B.
I was just wondering if there is a general rule about when ##\left[ A, e^B \right]=0## does imply that ##[A,B]=0## given that A and B are skew-Hermitian (or just in general for two matrices A and B).
 
  • #9
StoneTemplePython
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
1,163
566
I was just wondering if there is a general rule about when ##\left[ A, e^B \right]=0## does imply that ##[A,B]=0## given that A and B are skew-Hermitian (or just in general for two matrices A and B).
skew hermitian is an interesting place for this -- such matrices are unitarily diagonalizable and have purely imaginary eigenvalues... so check the kernel of the complex scalar exponential map:
##\exp\big(2i\pi\cdot n\big) = 1##
where ##n## is any integer

The problem you have is for some skew ##S## with spectrum given by ##\{2i\pi\cdot n\}## you have
##e^S = I## and the Identity matrix commutes with everything, but ##S## need not commute with everything

you should be able to engineer an countexample from here -- I'd probably use a 3x3 matrices for it, where ##S## is diagonal with ##[0, 2i\pi ,4 i\pi ]## on the diagonal, and ##A## some skew hermitian matrix that has no zeros anywhere on it. ##SA## has all zeros on its first row but not its first column, and ##AS## has all zeros on first column but not first row, so they do not commute, yet
##\left[ A, e^S \right] = \left[ A, I \right]=0##
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK, etotheipi and Isaac0427
  • #10
680
144
skew hermitian is an interesting place for this -- such matrices are unitarily diagonalizable and have purely imaginary eigenvalues... so check the kernel of the complex scalar exponential map:
##\exp\big(2i\pi\cdot n\big) = 1##
where ##n## is any integer

The problem you have is for some skew ##S## with spectrum given by ##\{2i\pi\cdot n\}## you have
##e^S = I## and the Identity matrix commutes with everything, but ##S## need not commute with everything

you should be able to engineer an countexample from here -- I'd probably use a 3x3 matrices for it, where ##S## is diagonal with ##[0, 2i\pi ,4 i\pi ]## on the diagonal, and ##A## some skew hermitian matrix that has no zeros anywhere on it. ##SA## has all zeros on its first row but not its first column, and ##AS## has all zeros on first column but not first row, so they do not commute, yet
##\left[ A, e^S \right] = \left[ A, I \right]=0##
Ah, thank you. As an easy example,
$$\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & 2\pi i
\end{pmatrix}$$
and
$$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & i\\
i & 2
\end{pmatrix}.$$

Still curious if anyone has an idea about what conditions in addition to ##[A,e^B]=0## are necessary to know that ##[A,B]=0##.
 
  • #11
StoneTemplePython
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
1,163
566
Ah, thank you. As an easy example,
$$\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & 2\pi i
\end{pmatrix}$$
and
$$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & i\\
i & 2
\end{pmatrix}.$$

Still curious if anyone has an idea about what conditions in addition to ##[A,e^B]=0## are necessary to know that ##[A,B]=0##.
note:

$$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & i\\
i & 2
\end{pmatrix}.$$
is not skew hermitian (check the diagonals)
 
  • #12
StoneTemplePython
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
1,163
566
Still curious if anyone has an idea about what conditions in addition to ##[A,e^B]=0## are necessary to know that ##[A,B]=0##.
For this, again with skew hermitian matrices in mind, one approach is to restrict the eigenvalues some how so that the exponential function is injective. E.g. constraining so all eigenvalues to have modulus ##\lt \pi## should do it.

The result is that whatever diagonalizes ##e^B## diagonalizes ##B## and if ##e^B## and ##A## commute then they are both simultanouesly diagonalizable, by ##U##, which in turn simultaneously diagonalizes ##B## and ##A## which implies ##B## and ##A## commute.
 
  • #13
679
132
Ah, thank you. As an easy example,
$$\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & 2\pi i
\end{pmatrix}$$
and
$$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & i\\
i & 2
\end{pmatrix}.$$

Still curious if anyone has an idea about what conditions in addition to ##[A,e^B]=0## are necessary to know that ##[A,B]=0##.
I would look into matrix logairthims
 
  • #14
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,774
6,263
Summary:: Does ##\left[ A, e^B \right]=0## imply ##[A,B]=0##?

The summary pretty much explains my question. I know that ##\left[ A, e^B \right]=0## if ##[A,B]=0## (and can prove it), but I can't figure out how to prove if it is or is not an "if and only if" statement.

Thanks in advance!
Here's a counterexample using Pauli spin matrices. We know that:
$$\exp(-i2\pi \sigma_k) = I$$
commutes with everything, but the ##\sigma_k## do not.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Abhishek11235, etotheipi and DrClaude
  • #15
mathman
Science Advisor
7,840
441
Right, but all matrices commute with the identity, so ##[A,I]=0##.
##[A,I]=A## for any matrix.
 
  • #16
13,252
10,213
##[A,I]=A## for any matrix.
No. ##[X,Y]## is short for ##XY-YX## if ##X,Y## are algebra elements, and ##X^{-1}Y^{-1}XY## if ##X,Y## are group elements. So the result is either ##[A,I]=0## or ##[A,I]=I##.
 
  • #17
mathman
Science Advisor
7,840
441
No. ##[X,Y]## is short for ##XY-YX## if ##X,Y## are algebra elements, and ##X^{-1}Y^{-1}XY## if ##X,Y## are group elements. So the result is either ##[A,I]=0## or ##[A,I]=I##.
It looks like I misunderstood the symbolism. I thought it ([...]) meant product.
 
  • #18
680
144
note:

$$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & i\\
i & 2
\end{pmatrix}.$$
is not skew hermitian (check the diagonals)
For some reason...I just forgot that the diagonals existed. Let’s change that second matrix to
$$\begin{pmatrix}
i & 3\\
-3 & 2i
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Whoops
 
  • #19
399
116
If A commutes with exp(tB) for real t in some interval about 0, then I think A and B commute.
 
  • #20
13,252
10,213
If A commutes with exp(tB) for real t in some interval about 0, then I think A and B commute.
Only if you cut the quadratic terms onwards. Will say: no, but good enough for physicists.
 
  • Haha
Likes Isaac0427
  • #21
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,774
6,263
If A commutes with exp(tB) for real t in some interval about 0, then I think A and B commute.
And what do you think about all the countereaxmples above?
 
  • #22
399
116
Fair enough. (I still suspect [A exp(tB)] = 0 for t in (-ε, ε) implies [A,B] = 0 for *almost all B*, but I'm not sure I can identify the exact exceptions. )
 
  • #23
399
116
Sorry, I missed where it was "proven otherwise".

And are you sure that etB = eteB ???
 
Last edited:
  • #24
680
144
Only if you cut the quadratic terms onwards. Will say: no, but good enough for physicists.
Speaking of physics, while this was really a math question, this was the context that I was asking it in (just in case someone may have any thoughts about the specific application of my question):

In quantum mechanics, say you have a Hermitian operator Q that commutes with the Hamiltonian. Thus the observable quantity corresponding to Q is conserved, which implies a symmetry by Noether's theorem. At least for the cases of momentum and energy conservation, this symmetry is an invariance of the energy under some unitary transformation ##U=e^{iQ}## (i.e. translational symmetry for momentum conservation and time-translation symmetry for energy conservation). In these cases, both [Q,H]=0 and ##[e^{iQ},H]=0##. I was curious if the symmetry corresponding to the "conservation of Q" could in general be associated with some unitary transformation ##e^{iQ}## and vice versa, but it would seem like that is a no, given that it is possible for ##e^{iQ}## to commute with H without Q commuting with H.

I'm hoping this isn't nonsense. Also, I apologize if this should just be a new thread-- I can do that if I need to.
 
  • #25
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,774
6,263
Speaking of physics, while this was really a math question, this was the context that I was asking it in (just in case someone may have any thoughts about the specific application of my question):

In quantum mechanics, say you have a Hermitian operator Q that commutes with the Hamiltonian. Thus the observable quantity corresponding to Q is conserved, which implies a symmetry by Noether's theorem. At least for the cases of momentum and energy conservation, this symmetry is an invariance of the energy under some unitary transformation ##U=e^{iQ}## (i.e. translational symmetry for momentum conservation and time-translation symmetry for energy conservation). In these cases, both [Q,H]=0 and ##[e^{iQ},H]=0##. I was curious if the symmetry corresponding to the "conservation of Q" could in general be associated with some unitary transformation ##e^{iQ}## and vice versa, but it would seem like that is a no, given that it is possible for ##e^{iQ}## to commute with H without Q commuting with H.

I'm hoping this isn't nonsense. Also, I apologize if this should just be a new thread-- I can do that if I need to.
There's a relationship between Hermitian and Unitary operators, in that ##U## is unitary iff ##U = e^{iH}## for some Hermitian operator ##H##.
 

Related Threads on Matrices Commuting with Matrix Exponential

Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
9K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Top