Nilpotent matrix

  • #1
535
72

Homework Statement


Show that strictly upper triangular ##n\times n## matrices are nilpotent.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



Let ##f## be the endomorphism represented by the strict upper triangular matrix ##M## in basis ##{\cal B} = (e_1,...,e_n)##.
We have that ##f(e_k) \in \text{span}(e_1,...,e_{k-1})##, ##(f\circ f)(e_k)\in f(\text{span}(e_1,...,e_{k-1}))= \text{span}(f(e_1),...,f(e_{k-1})) \subset \text{span}(e_1,...,e_{k-2}) ##... Repeating this process, we are sure that ##f^{(k)}(e_k) = 0##. So ##\ell\ge n \Rightarrow M^\ell = 0 ##, right?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
STEMucator
Homework Helper
2,075
140

Homework Statement


Show that strictly upper triangular ##n\times n## matrices are nilpotent.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



Let ##f## be the endomorphism represented by the strictly upper triangular matrix ##M## in basis ##{\cal B} = (e_1,...,e_n)##.
We have that ##f(e_k) \in \text{span}(e_1,...,e_{k-1})##, ##(f\circ f)(e_k)\in f(\text{span}(e_1,...,e_{k-1}))= \text{span}(f(e_1),...,f(e_{k-1})) \subset \text{span}(e_1,...,e_{k-2}) ##... Repeating this process, we are sure that ##f^{(k)}(e_k) = 0##. So ##\ell\ge n \Rightarrow M^\ell = 0 ##, right?

So you want to show ##M_{ij}^k = 0## for some positive integer ##k##.

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying ##f(e_k) = \text{Some strictly upper triangular matrix M}## for any basis vector in ##\cal B##.

I think it looks okay, but the notation is a little confusing. When you write ##f^{(k)}(e_k) = 0##, some people may get confused, and so I think it is better to write it as:

$${(f(e_k))}^k = 0$$

To signify you want the ##\text{k}^{th}## power of the morphism of the ##{e_k}^{th}## basis vector.

If ##{(f(e_k))}^k = M_{ij}^k = 0## for some positive integer ##k##, then you can go as far as to say ##M_{ij}^{\ell} = 0, \forall \ell \geq k##. This is intuitive because eventually with so many powers of the matrix, there will be enough zeroes to multiply and produce the zero matrix. Then you can assume every matrix power afterwards is the zero matrix.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes geoffrey159
  • #3
STEMucator
Homework Helper
2,075
140
There is an alternate way to prove this:

Suppose ##A \in M_{n \times n}( \mathbb{F} )## is a strictly upper triangular matrix. Then ##A## has characteristic polynomial ##x^n##. Using the the fact:

$$p( \lambda ) = \text{det}(A - \lambda I)$$

You can deduce ##A^n = 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes geoffrey159
  • #4
535
72
Hello,

So you want to show ##M_{ij}^k = 0## for some positive integer ##k##.

Yes


If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying ##f(e_k) = \text{Some strictly upper triangular matrix M}## for any basis vector in ##\cal B##.

##f(e_k)## is the k-th column of matrix ##M##, which is strictly upper triangular

I think it looks okay, but the notation is a little confusing. When you write ##f^{(k)}(e_k) = 0##, some people may get confused, and so I think it is better to write it as:

$${(f(e_k))}^k = 0$$
To signify you want the ##\text{k}^{th}## power of the morphism of the ##{e_k}^{th}## basis vector.


By ##f^{(k)}##, I meant the k-th composition by ##f## (##f\circ ... \circ f## k times), not the k-th power.

If ##{(f(e_k))}^k = M_{ij}^k = 0## for some positive integer ##k##, then you can go as far as to say ##M_{ij}^{\ell} = 0, \forall \ell \geq k##. This is intuitive because eventually with so many powers of the matrix, there will be enough zeroes to multiply and produce the zero matrix. Then you can assume every matrix power afterwards is the zero matrix.

##f^{(k)}(e_k) = 0## means the k-th column is zero after k multiplications of M by itself, not that the whole matrix is zero, right ?


There is an alternate way to prove this:

Suppose ##A \in M_{n \times n}( \mathbb{F} )## is a strictly upper triangular matrix. Then ##A## has characteristic polynomial ##x^n##. Using the the fact:

$$p( \lambda ) = \text{det}(A - \lambda I)$$

You can deduce ##A^n = 0##.

I don't understand, could you elaborate please?
 
  • #5
vela
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
15,097
1,675
I don't understand, could you elaborate please?
Look up the Cayley-Hamilton theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes geoffrey159
  • #6
STEMucator
Homework Helper
2,075
140
By ##f^{(k)}##, I meant the k-th composition by ff (f∘...∘ff\circ ... \circ f k times), not the k-th power.

I was quite confused by the notation when I first looked at it.

If you want help with the alternate proof, show some of your thoughts.
 
  • Like
Likes geoffrey159
  • #7
535
72
Look up the Cayley-Hamilton theorem.
I was quite confused by the notation when I first looked at it.

If you want help with the alternate proof, show some of your thoughts.

Sorry, I was very lazy yesterday.
Your idea is the most simple math proof ever ! My thought on this is (Wikipedia's thought :biggrin:) is that the caracteristic polynomial is zero in ##A##, so that ## 0 = p(A) = (-1)^n A^n \iff A^n = 0##.
What a nice idea !
 

Related Threads on Nilpotent matrix

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
841
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
693
Top