$Ain M_2(mathbb C)$ and $A $ is nilpotent then $A^2=0$.How to prove this?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












$Ain M_2(mathbb C)$ and $A $ is nilpotent then $A^2=0$.How to prove this?



I am not getting enough hints to start










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Consider the minimal polynomial of $A$...
    – Sebastian Schoennenbeck
    Nov 13 '14 at 12:37















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












$Ain M_2(mathbb C)$ and $A $ is nilpotent then $A^2=0$.How to prove this?



I am not getting enough hints to start










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Consider the minimal polynomial of $A$...
    – Sebastian Schoennenbeck
    Nov 13 '14 at 12:37













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











$Ain M_2(mathbb C)$ and $A $ is nilpotent then $A^2=0$.How to prove this?



I am not getting enough hints to start










share|cite|improve this question















$Ain M_2(mathbb C)$ and $A $ is nilpotent then $A^2=0$.How to prove this?



I am not getting enough hints to start







linear-algebra matrices






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 13 '14 at 14:35









Martin Brandenburg

107k13156324




107k13156324










asked Nov 13 '14 at 12:34









Learnmore

17.5k32494




17.5k32494












  • Consider the minimal polynomial of $A$...
    – Sebastian Schoennenbeck
    Nov 13 '14 at 12:37


















  • Consider the minimal polynomial of $A$...
    – Sebastian Schoennenbeck
    Nov 13 '14 at 12:37
















Consider the minimal polynomial of $A$...
– Sebastian Schoennenbeck
Nov 13 '14 at 12:37




Consider the minimal polynomial of $A$...
– Sebastian Schoennenbeck
Nov 13 '14 at 12:37










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













For any vector space endomorphism $A$, we have $$0=ker A^0subseteq ker Asubseteq ker A^2subseteq ldotssubseteq ker A^nsubseteq ker A^{n+1}subseteq ldots,$$ simply because $A^nv=0$ implies $A^{n+1}v=AA^nv=0$.
If at any point $ker A^n=ker A^{n+1}$, then also $ker A^{n+1}=ker A^{n+2}$ etc. because $$vinker A^{n+2}iff Avinker A^{n+1}iff Avinker A^niff vinker A^{n+1}.$$ In other words, the sequence of kernels of powers of $A$ is eventually stationary and before that it is strictly increasing. It follows that the chain becaomes stationary at $A^{dim V}$ or earlier. For nilpotent $A$ this means that $A^{dim V}$ must be $0$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • +1 all very neat, wish you just wrote $text{Ker},A^{n+1}= A^{-1}( text{Ker},A^n)$
    – orangeskid
    Nov 14 '14 at 3:36




















up vote
5
down vote













If $A$ is nilpotent, then this follows from Cayley-Hamilton: $A^2-mathrm{tr}(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$ , and $mathrm{tr}(A)=det(A)=0$ since $A$ is nilpotent.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Why the down vote?
    – Quang Hoang
    Nov 13 '14 at 12:46










  • How you get this equation
    – Learnmore
    Nov 13 '14 at 12:58






  • 1




    @I didn't downvote, but your equation should be $A^2-tr(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$.
    – Jean-Claude Arbaut
    Nov 13 '14 at 13:00












  • Yes I agree @Jean-ClaudeArbaut
    – Learnmore
    Nov 13 '14 at 13:01










  • Thank you, right. @learning maths: Just check this by a computation. This generalizes, see Cayley-Hamilton.
    – Dietrich Burde
    Nov 13 '14 at 13:10


















up vote
3
down vote













Nilpotent implies the trace is $0$.



$$ A*A=begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} a^2+bc & 0 \ 0 & a^2+bc end{pmatrix}$$



Since that is a multiple of the identity, if that's not $0$ then $A^{2n} neq 0$ for all $n$. But that's absurd, because $A$ is nilpotent.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Why nilpotent implies trace=0
    – Learnmore
    Nov 13 '14 at 12:57










  • determinant=0 is clear but why trace=0
    – Learnmore
    Nov 13 '14 at 13:04






  • 1




    @learningmaths The trace is also the sum of eivenvalues (notice that the trace is invariant by transformation $Ato P^{-1}AP$, see here). And since a nilpotent matrix $A$ satisfies $A^n=0$ for some $n$, all eigenvalues must be zero.
    – Jean-Claude Arbaut
    Nov 13 '14 at 13:07




















up vote
1
down vote













Since $A$ is nilpotent, both of its eigenvalues are zero, and so (via the existence of the Jordan Normal Form), $A = P^{-1} J P$ for some matrix $P$ and either
$$J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix} qquad text{or} qquad J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix}.$$
In either case, $J^2 = 0$, so
$$A^2 = (P^{-1} J P)(P^{-1} J P) = P^{-1} J^2 P = 0.$$



Remark By essentially the same argument, if $A in M_n(mathbb{C})$ is nilpotent, then $A^n = 0$, and this is sharp in the sense that it need not be true that $A^{n - 1} = 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    $A$ is nilpotent so it cannot be injective. This means $dim( Ker A ) geq 1$ and $Ker A subset Im A$. We also know that: $dim(Im A) + dim(Ker A) = 2$.



    You have two cases:




    • $dim(Ker A) = 2$ then $A = 0$ and $A^2 = 0$.


    • $dim(Ker A) = 1$, then $dim(Im A) = 1$. As both subspaces have same dimension and $Ker A subset Im A$ they are equal: $Ker A = Im A$ which leads to $A^2 = 0$.







    share|cite|improve this answer






























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Hint: Assume that $A^2neq 0$ then there exists a smaller integer $ngeq 3$ satisfying $A^n=0$ and $A^{n-1}neq 0$. Let $xin mathbb C^2$ such that $A^{n-1}xneq 0$.



      Noticed then that $(x,Ax,A^2x,ldots, A^{n-1}x)$ should be a linearly independent family containing $ngeq 3$ elements of $mathbb C^2$.






      share|cite|improve this answer






























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        $A$ can be put into upper triangular form, and since $A$ is nilpotent the its eigenvalues are both zero and the upper triangular form will have zeroes on its diagonal. Squaring this matrix gives zero, and so $A^2 = 0$ also.



        Note that this same argument gives that any $n$ by $n$ nilpotent matrix over ${mathbb C}$, when raised to the $n$th power, gives the zero matrix.






        share|cite|improve this answer




























          up vote
          0
          down vote













          If $A^{n}=0$ but $A^{n-1}ne 0$, then there exists $x ne 0$ such that $A^{n}x = 0$ but $A^{n-1}x ne 0$. Then ${ x, Ax,cdots, A^{n-1}x }$ is a linearly independent set. To see why, suppose that
          $$
          alpha_{0}x+alpha_{1}Ax+cdots+alpha_{n-1}A^{n-1}x = 0.
          $$
          By applying $A^{n-1}$ to the above, we arrive at $alpha_{0}A^{n-1}x=0$, which gives $alpha_{0}=0$. Then apply $A^{n-2}$ to conclude that $alpha_{1}=0$, and so on. Because we're working on a two-dimensional space, then $A^{2} = 0$ must hold in order to avoid a contradiction of dimension.






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Since $0$ is the only eigenvalue of a nilpotent matrix, its trace (sum of eigenvalues) and determinant (product of eigenvalues) are both $0$. These two relations suggest that $A$ is of the form
            begin{bmatrix}
            a & frac{-a^2}{c} \
            c & -a
            end{bmatrix}

            Square it to find that it is the zero matrix.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1019966%2fa-in-m-2-mathbb-c-and-a-is-nilpotent-then-a2-0-how-to-prove-this%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              9 Answers
              9






              active

              oldest

              votes








              9 Answers
              9






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              5
              down vote













              For any vector space endomorphism $A$, we have $$0=ker A^0subseteq ker Asubseteq ker A^2subseteq ldotssubseteq ker A^nsubseteq ker A^{n+1}subseteq ldots,$$ simply because $A^nv=0$ implies $A^{n+1}v=AA^nv=0$.
              If at any point $ker A^n=ker A^{n+1}$, then also $ker A^{n+1}=ker A^{n+2}$ etc. because $$vinker A^{n+2}iff Avinker A^{n+1}iff Avinker A^niff vinker A^{n+1}.$$ In other words, the sequence of kernels of powers of $A$ is eventually stationary and before that it is strictly increasing. It follows that the chain becaomes stationary at $A^{dim V}$ or earlier. For nilpotent $A$ this means that $A^{dim V}$ must be $0$.






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • +1 all very neat, wish you just wrote $text{Ker},A^{n+1}= A^{-1}( text{Ker},A^n)$
                – orangeskid
                Nov 14 '14 at 3:36

















              up vote
              5
              down vote













              For any vector space endomorphism $A$, we have $$0=ker A^0subseteq ker Asubseteq ker A^2subseteq ldotssubseteq ker A^nsubseteq ker A^{n+1}subseteq ldots,$$ simply because $A^nv=0$ implies $A^{n+1}v=AA^nv=0$.
              If at any point $ker A^n=ker A^{n+1}$, then also $ker A^{n+1}=ker A^{n+2}$ etc. because $$vinker A^{n+2}iff Avinker A^{n+1}iff Avinker A^niff vinker A^{n+1}.$$ In other words, the sequence of kernels of powers of $A$ is eventually stationary and before that it is strictly increasing. It follows that the chain becaomes stationary at $A^{dim V}$ or earlier. For nilpotent $A$ this means that $A^{dim V}$ must be $0$.






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • +1 all very neat, wish you just wrote $text{Ker},A^{n+1}= A^{-1}( text{Ker},A^n)$
                – orangeskid
                Nov 14 '14 at 3:36















              up vote
              5
              down vote










              up vote
              5
              down vote









              For any vector space endomorphism $A$, we have $$0=ker A^0subseteq ker Asubseteq ker A^2subseteq ldotssubseteq ker A^nsubseteq ker A^{n+1}subseteq ldots,$$ simply because $A^nv=0$ implies $A^{n+1}v=AA^nv=0$.
              If at any point $ker A^n=ker A^{n+1}$, then also $ker A^{n+1}=ker A^{n+2}$ etc. because $$vinker A^{n+2}iff Avinker A^{n+1}iff Avinker A^niff vinker A^{n+1}.$$ In other words, the sequence of kernels of powers of $A$ is eventually stationary and before that it is strictly increasing. It follows that the chain becaomes stationary at $A^{dim V}$ or earlier. For nilpotent $A$ this means that $A^{dim V}$ must be $0$.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              For any vector space endomorphism $A$, we have $$0=ker A^0subseteq ker Asubseteq ker A^2subseteq ldotssubseteq ker A^nsubseteq ker A^{n+1}subseteq ldots,$$ simply because $A^nv=0$ implies $A^{n+1}v=AA^nv=0$.
              If at any point $ker A^n=ker A^{n+1}$, then also $ker A^{n+1}=ker A^{n+2}$ etc. because $$vinker A^{n+2}iff Avinker A^{n+1}iff Avinker A^niff vinker A^{n+1}.$$ In other words, the sequence of kernels of powers of $A$ is eventually stationary and before that it is strictly increasing. It follows that the chain becaomes stationary at $A^{dim V}$ or earlier. For nilpotent $A$ this means that $A^{dim V}$ must be $0$.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:42









              Hagen von Eitzen

              275k21268495




              275k21268495












              • +1 all very neat, wish you just wrote $text{Ker},A^{n+1}= A^{-1}( text{Ker},A^n)$
                – orangeskid
                Nov 14 '14 at 3:36




















              • +1 all very neat, wish you just wrote $text{Ker},A^{n+1}= A^{-1}( text{Ker},A^n)$
                – orangeskid
                Nov 14 '14 at 3:36


















              +1 all very neat, wish you just wrote $text{Ker},A^{n+1}= A^{-1}( text{Ker},A^n)$
              – orangeskid
              Nov 14 '14 at 3:36






              +1 all very neat, wish you just wrote $text{Ker},A^{n+1}= A^{-1}( text{Ker},A^n)$
              – orangeskid
              Nov 14 '14 at 3:36












              up vote
              5
              down vote













              If $A$ is nilpotent, then this follows from Cayley-Hamilton: $A^2-mathrm{tr}(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$ , and $mathrm{tr}(A)=det(A)=0$ since $A$ is nilpotent.






              share|cite|improve this answer























              • Why the down vote?
                – Quang Hoang
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:46










              • How you get this equation
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:58






              • 1




                @I didn't downvote, but your equation should be $A^2-tr(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$.
                – Jean-Claude Arbaut
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:00












              • Yes I agree @Jean-ClaudeArbaut
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:01










              • Thank you, right. @learning maths: Just check this by a computation. This generalizes, see Cayley-Hamilton.
                – Dietrich Burde
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:10















              up vote
              5
              down vote













              If $A$ is nilpotent, then this follows from Cayley-Hamilton: $A^2-mathrm{tr}(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$ , and $mathrm{tr}(A)=det(A)=0$ since $A$ is nilpotent.






              share|cite|improve this answer























              • Why the down vote?
                – Quang Hoang
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:46










              • How you get this equation
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:58






              • 1




                @I didn't downvote, but your equation should be $A^2-tr(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$.
                – Jean-Claude Arbaut
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:00












              • Yes I agree @Jean-ClaudeArbaut
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:01










              • Thank you, right. @learning maths: Just check this by a computation. This generalizes, see Cayley-Hamilton.
                – Dietrich Burde
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:10













              up vote
              5
              down vote










              up vote
              5
              down vote









              If $A$ is nilpotent, then this follows from Cayley-Hamilton: $A^2-mathrm{tr}(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$ , and $mathrm{tr}(A)=det(A)=0$ since $A$ is nilpotent.






              share|cite|improve this answer














              If $A$ is nilpotent, then this follows from Cayley-Hamilton: $A^2-mathrm{tr}(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$ , and $mathrm{tr}(A)=det(A)=0$ since $A$ is nilpotent.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Nov 13 '14 at 14:46









              leo

              5,98743479




              5,98743479










              answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:39









              Dietrich Burde

              77.1k64386




              77.1k64386












              • Why the down vote?
                – Quang Hoang
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:46










              • How you get this equation
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:58






              • 1




                @I didn't downvote, but your equation should be $A^2-tr(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$.
                – Jean-Claude Arbaut
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:00












              • Yes I agree @Jean-ClaudeArbaut
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:01










              • Thank you, right. @learning maths: Just check this by a computation. This generalizes, see Cayley-Hamilton.
                – Dietrich Burde
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:10


















              • Why the down vote?
                – Quang Hoang
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:46










              • How you get this equation
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:58






              • 1




                @I didn't downvote, but your equation should be $A^2-tr(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$.
                – Jean-Claude Arbaut
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:00












              • Yes I agree @Jean-ClaudeArbaut
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:01










              • Thank you, right. @learning maths: Just check this by a computation. This generalizes, see Cayley-Hamilton.
                – Dietrich Burde
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:10
















              Why the down vote?
              – Quang Hoang
              Nov 13 '14 at 12:46




              Why the down vote?
              – Quang Hoang
              Nov 13 '14 at 12:46












              How you get this equation
              – Learnmore
              Nov 13 '14 at 12:58




              How you get this equation
              – Learnmore
              Nov 13 '14 at 12:58




              1




              1




              @I didn't downvote, but your equation should be $A^2-tr(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$.
              – Jean-Claude Arbaut
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:00






              @I didn't downvote, but your equation should be $A^2-tr(A)A+det(A)I_2=0$.
              – Jean-Claude Arbaut
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:00














              Yes I agree @Jean-ClaudeArbaut
              – Learnmore
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:01




              Yes I agree @Jean-ClaudeArbaut
              – Learnmore
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:01












              Thank you, right. @learning maths: Just check this by a computation. This generalizes, see Cayley-Hamilton.
              – Dietrich Burde
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:10




              Thank you, right. @learning maths: Just check this by a computation. This generalizes, see Cayley-Hamilton.
              – Dietrich Burde
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:10










              up vote
              3
              down vote













              Nilpotent implies the trace is $0$.



              $$ A*A=begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} a^2+bc & 0 \ 0 & a^2+bc end{pmatrix}$$



              Since that is a multiple of the identity, if that's not $0$ then $A^{2n} neq 0$ for all $n$. But that's absurd, because $A$ is nilpotent.






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • Why nilpotent implies trace=0
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:57










              • determinant=0 is clear but why trace=0
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:04






              • 1




                @learningmaths The trace is also the sum of eivenvalues (notice that the trace is invariant by transformation $Ato P^{-1}AP$, see here). And since a nilpotent matrix $A$ satisfies $A^n=0$ for some $n$, all eigenvalues must be zero.
                – Jean-Claude Arbaut
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:07

















              up vote
              3
              down vote













              Nilpotent implies the trace is $0$.



              $$ A*A=begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} a^2+bc & 0 \ 0 & a^2+bc end{pmatrix}$$



              Since that is a multiple of the identity, if that's not $0$ then $A^{2n} neq 0$ for all $n$. But that's absurd, because $A$ is nilpotent.






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • Why nilpotent implies trace=0
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:57










              • determinant=0 is clear but why trace=0
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:04






              • 1




                @learningmaths The trace is also the sum of eivenvalues (notice that the trace is invariant by transformation $Ato P^{-1}AP$, see here). And since a nilpotent matrix $A$ satisfies $A^n=0$ for some $n$, all eigenvalues must be zero.
                – Jean-Claude Arbaut
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:07















              up vote
              3
              down vote










              up vote
              3
              down vote









              Nilpotent implies the trace is $0$.



              $$ A*A=begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} a^2+bc & 0 \ 0 & a^2+bc end{pmatrix}$$



              Since that is a multiple of the identity, if that's not $0$ then $A^{2n} neq 0$ for all $n$. But that's absurd, because $A$ is nilpotent.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              Nilpotent implies the trace is $0$.



              $$ A*A=begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & -a end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} a^2+bc & 0 \ 0 & a^2+bc end{pmatrix}$$



              Since that is a multiple of the identity, if that's not $0$ then $A^{2n} neq 0$ for all $n$. But that's absurd, because $A$ is nilpotent.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:43









              AnalysisStudent0414

              4,330928




              4,330928












              • Why nilpotent implies trace=0
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:57










              • determinant=0 is clear but why trace=0
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:04






              • 1




                @learningmaths The trace is also the sum of eivenvalues (notice that the trace is invariant by transformation $Ato P^{-1}AP$, see here). And since a nilpotent matrix $A$ satisfies $A^n=0$ for some $n$, all eigenvalues must be zero.
                – Jean-Claude Arbaut
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:07




















              • Why nilpotent implies trace=0
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 12:57










              • determinant=0 is clear but why trace=0
                – Learnmore
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:04






              • 1




                @learningmaths The trace is also the sum of eivenvalues (notice that the trace is invariant by transformation $Ato P^{-1}AP$, see here). And since a nilpotent matrix $A$ satisfies $A^n=0$ for some $n$, all eigenvalues must be zero.
                – Jean-Claude Arbaut
                Nov 13 '14 at 13:07


















              Why nilpotent implies trace=0
              – Learnmore
              Nov 13 '14 at 12:57




              Why nilpotent implies trace=0
              – Learnmore
              Nov 13 '14 at 12:57












              determinant=0 is clear but why trace=0
              – Learnmore
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:04




              determinant=0 is clear but why trace=0
              – Learnmore
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:04




              1




              1




              @learningmaths The trace is also the sum of eivenvalues (notice that the trace is invariant by transformation $Ato P^{-1}AP$, see here). And since a nilpotent matrix $A$ satisfies $A^n=0$ for some $n$, all eigenvalues must be zero.
              – Jean-Claude Arbaut
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:07






              @learningmaths The trace is also the sum of eivenvalues (notice that the trace is invariant by transformation $Ato P^{-1}AP$, see here). And since a nilpotent matrix $A$ satisfies $A^n=0$ for some $n$, all eigenvalues must be zero.
              – Jean-Claude Arbaut
              Nov 13 '14 at 13:07












              up vote
              1
              down vote













              Since $A$ is nilpotent, both of its eigenvalues are zero, and so (via the existence of the Jordan Normal Form), $A = P^{-1} J P$ for some matrix $P$ and either
              $$J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix} qquad text{or} qquad J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix}.$$
              In either case, $J^2 = 0$, so
              $$A^2 = (P^{-1} J P)(P^{-1} J P) = P^{-1} J^2 P = 0.$$



              Remark By essentially the same argument, if $A in M_n(mathbb{C})$ is nilpotent, then $A^n = 0$, and this is sharp in the sense that it need not be true that $A^{n - 1} = 0$.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                1
                down vote













                Since $A$ is nilpotent, both of its eigenvalues are zero, and so (via the existence of the Jordan Normal Form), $A = P^{-1} J P$ for some matrix $P$ and either
                $$J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix} qquad text{or} qquad J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix}.$$
                In either case, $J^2 = 0$, so
                $$A^2 = (P^{-1} J P)(P^{-1} J P) = P^{-1} J^2 P = 0.$$



                Remark By essentially the same argument, if $A in M_n(mathbb{C})$ is nilpotent, then $A^n = 0$, and this is sharp in the sense that it need not be true that $A^{n - 1} = 0$.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  Since $A$ is nilpotent, both of its eigenvalues are zero, and so (via the existence of the Jordan Normal Form), $A = P^{-1} J P$ for some matrix $P$ and either
                  $$J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix} qquad text{or} qquad J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix}.$$
                  In either case, $J^2 = 0$, so
                  $$A^2 = (P^{-1} J P)(P^{-1} J P) = P^{-1} J^2 P = 0.$$



                  Remark By essentially the same argument, if $A in M_n(mathbb{C})$ is nilpotent, then $A^n = 0$, and this is sharp in the sense that it need not be true that $A^{n - 1} = 0$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Since $A$ is nilpotent, both of its eigenvalues are zero, and so (via the existence of the Jordan Normal Form), $A = P^{-1} J P$ for some matrix $P$ and either
                  $$J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix} qquad text{or} qquad J = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \ 0 & 0end{pmatrix}.$$
                  In either case, $J^2 = 0$, so
                  $$A^2 = (P^{-1} J P)(P^{-1} J P) = P^{-1} J^2 P = 0.$$



                  Remark By essentially the same argument, if $A in M_n(mathbb{C})$ is nilpotent, then $A^n = 0$, and this is sharp in the sense that it need not be true that $A^{n - 1} = 0$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:56









                  Travis

                  59.2k767145




                  59.2k767145






















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      $A$ is nilpotent so it cannot be injective. This means $dim( Ker A ) geq 1$ and $Ker A subset Im A$. We also know that: $dim(Im A) + dim(Ker A) = 2$.



                      You have two cases:




                      • $dim(Ker A) = 2$ then $A = 0$ and $A^2 = 0$.


                      • $dim(Ker A) = 1$, then $dim(Im A) = 1$. As both subspaces have same dimension and $Ker A subset Im A$ they are equal: $Ker A = Im A$ which leads to $A^2 = 0$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer



























                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        $A$ is nilpotent so it cannot be injective. This means $dim( Ker A ) geq 1$ and $Ker A subset Im A$. We also know that: $dim(Im A) + dim(Ker A) = 2$.



                        You have two cases:




                        • $dim(Ker A) = 2$ then $A = 0$ and $A^2 = 0$.


                        • $dim(Ker A) = 1$, then $dim(Im A) = 1$. As both subspaces have same dimension and $Ker A subset Im A$ they are equal: $Ker A = Im A$ which leads to $A^2 = 0$.







                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote









                          $A$ is nilpotent so it cannot be injective. This means $dim( Ker A ) geq 1$ and $Ker A subset Im A$. We also know that: $dim(Im A) + dim(Ker A) = 2$.



                          You have two cases:




                          • $dim(Ker A) = 2$ then $A = 0$ and $A^2 = 0$.


                          • $dim(Ker A) = 1$, then $dim(Im A) = 1$. As both subspaces have same dimension and $Ker A subset Im A$ they are equal: $Ker A = Im A$ which leads to $A^2 = 0$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          $A$ is nilpotent so it cannot be injective. This means $dim( Ker A ) geq 1$ and $Ker A subset Im A$. We also know that: $dim(Im A) + dim(Ker A) = 2$.



                          You have two cases:




                          • $dim(Ker A) = 2$ then $A = 0$ and $A^2 = 0$.


                          • $dim(Ker A) = 1$, then $dim(Im A) = 1$. As both subspaces have same dimension and $Ker A subset Im A$ they are equal: $Ker A = Im A$ which leads to $A^2 = 0$.








                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited Nov 13 '14 at 12:50

























                          answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:44









                          fjardon

                          35017




                          35017






















                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote













                              Hint: Assume that $A^2neq 0$ then there exists a smaller integer $ngeq 3$ satisfying $A^n=0$ and $A^{n-1}neq 0$. Let $xin mathbb C^2$ such that $A^{n-1}xneq 0$.



                              Noticed then that $(x,Ax,A^2x,ldots, A^{n-1}x)$ should be a linearly independent family containing $ngeq 3$ elements of $mathbb C^2$.






                              share|cite|improve this answer



























                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                Hint: Assume that $A^2neq 0$ then there exists a smaller integer $ngeq 3$ satisfying $A^n=0$ and $A^{n-1}neq 0$. Let $xin mathbb C^2$ such that $A^{n-1}xneq 0$.



                                Noticed then that $(x,Ax,A^2x,ldots, A^{n-1}x)$ should be a linearly independent family containing $ngeq 3$ elements of $mathbb C^2$.






                                share|cite|improve this answer

























                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote










                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote









                                  Hint: Assume that $A^2neq 0$ then there exists a smaller integer $ngeq 3$ satisfying $A^n=0$ and $A^{n-1}neq 0$. Let $xin mathbb C^2$ such that $A^{n-1}xneq 0$.



                                  Noticed then that $(x,Ax,A^2x,ldots, A^{n-1}x)$ should be a linearly independent family containing $ngeq 3$ elements of $mathbb C^2$.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer














                                  Hint: Assume that $A^2neq 0$ then there exists a smaller integer $ngeq 3$ satisfying $A^n=0$ and $A^{n-1}neq 0$. Let $xin mathbb C^2$ such that $A^{n-1}xneq 0$.



                                  Noticed then that $(x,Ax,A^2x,ldots, A^{n-1}x)$ should be a linearly independent family containing $ngeq 3$ elements of $mathbb C^2$.







                                  share|cite|improve this answer














                                  share|cite|improve this answer



                                  share|cite|improve this answer








                                  edited Nov 13 '14 at 14:29

























                                  answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:40









                                  Bebop

                                  2,795714




                                  2,795714






















                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote













                                      $A$ can be put into upper triangular form, and since $A$ is nilpotent the its eigenvalues are both zero and the upper triangular form will have zeroes on its diagonal. Squaring this matrix gives zero, and so $A^2 = 0$ also.



                                      Note that this same argument gives that any $n$ by $n$ nilpotent matrix over ${mathbb C}$, when raised to the $n$th power, gives the zero matrix.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer

























                                        up vote
                                        0
                                        down vote













                                        $A$ can be put into upper triangular form, and since $A$ is nilpotent the its eigenvalues are both zero and the upper triangular form will have zeroes on its diagonal. Squaring this matrix gives zero, and so $A^2 = 0$ also.



                                        Note that this same argument gives that any $n$ by $n$ nilpotent matrix over ${mathbb C}$, when raised to the $n$th power, gives the zero matrix.






                                        share|cite|improve this answer























                                          up vote
                                          0
                                          down vote










                                          up vote
                                          0
                                          down vote









                                          $A$ can be put into upper triangular form, and since $A$ is nilpotent the its eigenvalues are both zero and the upper triangular form will have zeroes on its diagonal. Squaring this matrix gives zero, and so $A^2 = 0$ also.



                                          Note that this same argument gives that any $n$ by $n$ nilpotent matrix over ${mathbb C}$, when raised to the $n$th power, gives the zero matrix.






                                          share|cite|improve this answer












                                          $A$ can be put into upper triangular form, and since $A$ is nilpotent the its eigenvalues are both zero and the upper triangular form will have zeroes on its diagonal. Squaring this matrix gives zero, and so $A^2 = 0$ also.



                                          Note that this same argument gives that any $n$ by $n$ nilpotent matrix over ${mathbb C}$, when raised to the $n$th power, gives the zero matrix.







                                          share|cite|improve this answer












                                          share|cite|improve this answer



                                          share|cite|improve this answer










                                          answered Nov 13 '14 at 14:50









                                          Zarrax

                                          35.2k249103




                                          35.2k249103






















                                              up vote
                                              0
                                              down vote













                                              If $A^{n}=0$ but $A^{n-1}ne 0$, then there exists $x ne 0$ such that $A^{n}x = 0$ but $A^{n-1}x ne 0$. Then ${ x, Ax,cdots, A^{n-1}x }$ is a linearly independent set. To see why, suppose that
                                              $$
                                              alpha_{0}x+alpha_{1}Ax+cdots+alpha_{n-1}A^{n-1}x = 0.
                                              $$
                                              By applying $A^{n-1}$ to the above, we arrive at $alpha_{0}A^{n-1}x=0$, which gives $alpha_{0}=0$. Then apply $A^{n-2}$ to conclude that $alpha_{1}=0$, and so on. Because we're working on a two-dimensional space, then $A^{2} = 0$ must hold in order to avoid a contradiction of dimension.






                                              share|cite|improve this answer

























                                                up vote
                                                0
                                                down vote













                                                If $A^{n}=0$ but $A^{n-1}ne 0$, then there exists $x ne 0$ such that $A^{n}x = 0$ but $A^{n-1}x ne 0$. Then ${ x, Ax,cdots, A^{n-1}x }$ is a linearly independent set. To see why, suppose that
                                                $$
                                                alpha_{0}x+alpha_{1}Ax+cdots+alpha_{n-1}A^{n-1}x = 0.
                                                $$
                                                By applying $A^{n-1}$ to the above, we arrive at $alpha_{0}A^{n-1}x=0$, which gives $alpha_{0}=0$. Then apply $A^{n-2}$ to conclude that $alpha_{1}=0$, and so on. Because we're working on a two-dimensional space, then $A^{2} = 0$ must hold in order to avoid a contradiction of dimension.






                                                share|cite|improve this answer























                                                  up vote
                                                  0
                                                  down vote










                                                  up vote
                                                  0
                                                  down vote









                                                  If $A^{n}=0$ but $A^{n-1}ne 0$, then there exists $x ne 0$ such that $A^{n}x = 0$ but $A^{n-1}x ne 0$. Then ${ x, Ax,cdots, A^{n-1}x }$ is a linearly independent set. To see why, suppose that
                                                  $$
                                                  alpha_{0}x+alpha_{1}Ax+cdots+alpha_{n-1}A^{n-1}x = 0.
                                                  $$
                                                  By applying $A^{n-1}$ to the above, we arrive at $alpha_{0}A^{n-1}x=0$, which gives $alpha_{0}=0$. Then apply $A^{n-2}$ to conclude that $alpha_{1}=0$, and so on. Because we're working on a two-dimensional space, then $A^{2} = 0$ must hold in order to avoid a contradiction of dimension.






                                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                                  If $A^{n}=0$ but $A^{n-1}ne 0$, then there exists $x ne 0$ such that $A^{n}x = 0$ but $A^{n-1}x ne 0$. Then ${ x, Ax,cdots, A^{n-1}x }$ is a linearly independent set. To see why, suppose that
                                                  $$
                                                  alpha_{0}x+alpha_{1}Ax+cdots+alpha_{n-1}A^{n-1}x = 0.
                                                  $$
                                                  By applying $A^{n-1}$ to the above, we arrive at $alpha_{0}A^{n-1}x=0$, which gives $alpha_{0}=0$. Then apply $A^{n-2}$ to conclude that $alpha_{1}=0$, and so on. Because we're working on a two-dimensional space, then $A^{2} = 0$ must hold in order to avoid a contradiction of dimension.







                                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                                  share|cite|improve this answer



                                                  share|cite|improve this answer










                                                  answered Nov 14 '14 at 3:30









                                                  DisintegratingByParts

                                                  58.3k42579




                                                  58.3k42579






















                                                      up vote
                                                      0
                                                      down vote













                                                      Since $0$ is the only eigenvalue of a nilpotent matrix, its trace (sum of eigenvalues) and determinant (product of eigenvalues) are both $0$. These two relations suggest that $A$ is of the form
                                                      begin{bmatrix}
                                                      a & frac{-a^2}{c} \
                                                      c & -a
                                                      end{bmatrix}

                                                      Square it to find that it is the zero matrix.






                                                      share|cite|improve this answer

























                                                        up vote
                                                        0
                                                        down vote













                                                        Since $0$ is the only eigenvalue of a nilpotent matrix, its trace (sum of eigenvalues) and determinant (product of eigenvalues) are both $0$. These two relations suggest that $A$ is of the form
                                                        begin{bmatrix}
                                                        a & frac{-a^2}{c} \
                                                        c & -a
                                                        end{bmatrix}

                                                        Square it to find that it is the zero matrix.






                                                        share|cite|improve this answer























                                                          up vote
                                                          0
                                                          down vote










                                                          up vote
                                                          0
                                                          down vote









                                                          Since $0$ is the only eigenvalue of a nilpotent matrix, its trace (sum of eigenvalues) and determinant (product of eigenvalues) are both $0$. These two relations suggest that $A$ is of the form
                                                          begin{bmatrix}
                                                          a & frac{-a^2}{c} \
                                                          c & -a
                                                          end{bmatrix}

                                                          Square it to find that it is the zero matrix.






                                                          share|cite|improve this answer












                                                          Since $0$ is the only eigenvalue of a nilpotent matrix, its trace (sum of eigenvalues) and determinant (product of eigenvalues) are both $0$. These two relations suggest that $A$ is of the form
                                                          begin{bmatrix}
                                                          a & frac{-a^2}{c} \
                                                          c & -a
                                                          end{bmatrix}

                                                          Square it to find that it is the zero matrix.







                                                          share|cite|improve this answer












                                                          share|cite|improve this answer



                                                          share|cite|improve this answer










                                                          answered Dec 5 at 9:25









                                                          Rhaldryn

                                                          160213




                                                          160213






























                                                              draft saved

                                                              draft discarded




















































                                                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                                              But avoid



                                                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                                              But avoid



                                                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                                              draft saved


                                                              draft discarded














                                                              StackExchange.ready(
                                                              function () {
                                                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1019966%2fa-in-m-2-mathbb-c-and-a-is-nilpotent-then-a2-0-how-to-prove-this%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                                              }
                                                              );

                                                              Post as a guest















                                                              Required, but never shown





















































                                                              Required, but never shown














                                                              Required, but never shown












                                                              Required, but never shown







                                                              Required, but never shown

































                                                              Required, but never shown














                                                              Required, but never shown












                                                              Required, but never shown







                                                              Required, but never shown







                                                              Popular posts from this blog

                                                              Bressuire

                                                              Cabo Verde

                                                              Gyllenstierna