Proving Similar Matrices Have the Same Characteristic Polynomial

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that two nxn matrices, A and B, defined by the relation A = QBQ' for an invertible matrix Q, share the same characteristic polynomial. The key steps involve demonstrating that det(A - I*lambda) equals det(B - I*lambda) by manipulating the determinant expressions. The participant successfully applies the properties of determinants, specifically det(ABC) = det(A)det(B)det(C), and the identity AI = IA, to establish the equality. This proof is crucial for understanding the relationship between similar matrices and their characteristic polynomials.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix theory, specifically the properties of determinants.
  • Familiarity with the concept of similar matrices and their implications.
  • Knowledge of linear algebra notation, including characteristic polynomials.
  • Proficiency in matrix multiplication and its properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of determinants in depth, focusing on the multiplicative property.
  • Explore the concept of similar matrices and their applications in linear algebra.
  • Learn about characteristic polynomials and their significance in eigenvalue problems.
  • Investigate the implications of matrix similarity in various mathematical contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Students of linear algebra, mathematicians interested in matrix theory, and anyone studying eigenvalues and characteristic polynomials will benefit from this discussion.

EvLer
Messages
454
Reaction score
0
So, I have stared at this for a while:
Notation: Q' - inverse of Q, != stands for "not equal";

Suppose A and B are nxn matrices such that A = QBQ' for some invertible matrix Q. Prove that A and B have the same characteristic polynomials

I can prove that they have the same determinant, but that is about it. I know that charact. polyn. looks like so:

det(A - I*lambda) = det(B - I*lambda)
det(QBQ' - I*lamda) = det(B - I*lambda)

It would be equal if Q and Q' cancel out, but isn't it true that det(A + B) != det(A) + det(B).
I am not sure where to go from here. Is it correct to multiply expressions inside parenthesis by something on both sides? even if it's in determinant :rolleyes:
I am studying for the final, so any help is appreciated more than ever.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
det(QBQ' - kI) = det(QBQ' - Q(kI)Q'), where I'm using k instead of \lambda because it's easier to type. Now, do you see why this equality holds?

Q(kI)Q' = kQIQ' = k(QI)Q' = k(Q)Q' = kQQ' = k(I) = kI, so the equality does hold. Use the distributive property of matrix multiplaction twice, then use the fact that det(ABC) = det(A)det(B)det(C), and you should be done.
 
Ohhh, OK. So you also used this identity: AI = IA.
Thanks :smile:
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K