$Ain M_2(mathbb C)$ 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
linear-algebra matrices
add a comment |
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
linear-algebra matrices
Consider the minimal polynomial of $A$...
– Sebastian Schoennenbeck
Nov 13 '14 at 12:37
add a comment |
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
linear-algebra matrices
$Ain M_2(mathbb C)$ and $A $ is nilpotent then $A^2=0$.How to prove this?
I am not getting enough hints to start
linear-algebra matrices
linear-algebra matrices
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $0$.
+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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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 $A^{n - 1} = 0$.
add a comment |
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 $A^2 = 0$.
add a comment |
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 $mathbb C^2$.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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 $0$.
+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
add a comment |
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 $0$.
+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
add a comment |
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 $0$.
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 $0$.
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
add a comment |
+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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $A^{n - 1} = 0$.
add a comment |
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 $A^{n - 1} = 0$.
add a comment |
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 $A^{n - 1} = 0$.
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 $A^{n - 1} = 0$.
answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:56
Travis
59.2k767145
59.2k767145
add a comment |
add a comment |
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 $A^2 = 0$.
add a comment |
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 $A^2 = 0$.
add a comment |
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 $A^2 = 0$.
$A$ 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 $A^2 = 0$.
edited Nov 13 '14 at 12:50
answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:44
fjardon
35017
35017
add a comment |
add a comment |
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 $mathbb C^2$.
add a comment |
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 $mathbb C^2$.
add a comment |
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 $mathbb C^2$.
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 $mathbb C^2$.
edited Nov 13 '14 at 14:29
answered Nov 13 '14 at 12:40
Bebop
2,795714
2,795714
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
$A$ 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.
answered Nov 13 '14 at 14:50
Zarrax
35.2k249103
35.2k249103
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Nov 14 '14 at 3:30
DisintegratingByParts
58.3k42579
58.3k42579
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Dec 5 at 9:25
Rhaldryn
160213
160213
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Consider the minimal polynomial of $A$...
– Sebastian Schoennenbeck
Nov 13 '14 at 12:37