Mixing
Unipotent matrix similar to an upper-triangular matrix
$begingroup$
"Any unipotent matrix is similar to an upper-triangular matrix with 1's on the diagonal"...
This is usually alleged, but I have no idea how to demonstrate that, starting with the definition : $A$ is unipotent if and only if there is $kin mathbb{N}$ so that $(A-I_n)^k=0$.
And I browsed Internet for hints but found nothing useful. I am not looking here for a ready-made solution, but I would like to understand what is the procedure, what are the steps one has to make, in order to proceed from definition to the result I stated above.
Thanks in advance, if someone is able to detail the path to do it.
unipotent-matrices
asked Jan 21 at 21:43
AndrewAndrew
163
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Any unipotent matrix is similar to an upper-triangular matrix with 1's on the diagonal"...
This is usually alleged, but I have no idea how to demonstrate that, starting with the definition : $A$ is unipotent if and only if there is $kin mathbb{N}$ so that $(A-I_n)^k=0$.
And I browsed Internet for hints but found nothing useful. I am not looking here for a ready-made solution, but I would like to understand what is the procedure, what are the steps one has to make, in order to proceed from definition to the result I stated above.
Thanks in advance, if someone is able to detail the path to do it.
unipotent-matrices
asked Jan 21 at 21:43
AndrewAndrew
163
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
What's your ground field? Are you familiar with Jordan normal form? You can look this up on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– jflipp
Jan 21 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Unfortunately not...
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Any unipotent matrix is similar to an upper-triangular matrix with 1's on the diagonal"...
This is usually alleged, but I have no idea how to demonstrate that, starting with the definition : $A$ is unipotent if and only if there is $kin mathbb{N}$ so that $(A-I_n)^k=0$.
And I browsed Internet for hints but found nothing useful. I am not looking here for a ready-made solution, but I would like to understand what is the procedure, what are the steps one has to make, in order to proceed from definition to the result I stated above.
Thanks in advance, if someone is able to detail the path to do it.
unipotent-matrices
asked Jan 21 at 21:43
AndrewAndrew
163
$endgroup$
"Any unipotent matrix is similar to an upper-triangular matrix with 1's on the diagonal"...
This is usually alleged, but I have no idea how to demonstrate that, starting with the definition : $A$ is unipotent if and only if there is $kin mathbb{N}$ so that $(A-I_n)^k=0$.
And I browsed Internet for hints but found nothing useful. I am not looking here for a ready-made solution, but I would like to understand what is the procedure, what are the steps one has to make, in order to proceed from definition to the result I stated above.
Thanks in advance, if someone is able to detail the path to do it.
unipotent-matrices
unipotent-matrices
asked Jan 21 at 21:43
AndrewAndrew
163
asked Jan 21 at 21:43
AndrewAndrew
163
asked Jan 21 at 21:43
AndrewAndrew
163
asked Jan 21 at 21:43
AndrewAndrew
163
asked Jan 21 at 21:43
AndrewAndrew
163
163
1
$begingroup$
What's your ground field? Are you familiar with Jordan normal form? You can look this up on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– jflipp
Jan 21 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Unfortunately not...
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:48
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
What's your ground field? Are you familiar with Jordan normal form? You can look this up on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– jflipp
Jan 21 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Unfortunately not...
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:48
1
1
$begingroup$
What's your ground field? Are you familiar with Jordan normal form? You can look this up on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– jflipp
Jan 21 at 22:00
$begingroup$
What's your ground field? Are you familiar with Jordan normal form? You can look this up on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– jflipp
Jan 21 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Unfortunately not...
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:48
$begingroup$
Unfortunately not...
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:48
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here I work over the complex field $Bbb C$.
The main steps are (1.): show that $1$ is the only possible eigevalue of $A$; (2.) cast $A$ into Jordan form. To wit:
First, look at what the condition
$(A - I_n)^k = 0 tag 1$
reveals about the eigenvalues of $A$: that they must all be $1$, for if
$A vec x = lambda vec x = lambda I_n vec x, ; vec x ne 0, tag 2$
then
$(A - I_n) vec x = (lambda I_n - I_n) vec x = (lambda - 1)I_n vec x = (lambda - 1) vec x, tag 3$
from which we find
$(lambda - 1)^k vec x = (A - I_n)^k vec x = 0; tag 4$
now since $vec x ne 0$ we infer that
$(lambda - 1)^k = 0 Longrightarrow lambda = 1. tag 5$
Now, we may cast $A$ into Jordan normal form; that is, we may find a nonsingular matrix $P$ such that
$PAP^{-1} = D + N, tag 6$
where $D$ is a strictly diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the eigenvalues of $A$, and $N$ is strictly upper triangular; since the only eigenvalue of $A$ is $1$, we have
$PAP^{-1} = I + N, tag 7$
which is the requisite result. $OEDelta$.
answered Jan 21 at 22:15
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
47.8k23067
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
In line (4), did you mean $(lambda I_n - I_n)$ and/or $(lambda - 1)$ ?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Jan 21 at 22:21
$begingroup$
$lambda - 1$. Thanks for the catch. Will edit.
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 21 at 22:23
$begingroup$
Thanks Robert. I am not familiar with Jordan forms, But your reasoning looks clear. I will look into it in detail and I'm sure I will manage to deal with it.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have already given us that a matrix $A$ is unipotent $Longleftrightarrow$ $(A-I)^k=0$ for some $k in mathbb N$. Notice that this is an equivalent statement to saying that $A-I$ is nilpotent.
A useful characteristic of a nilpotent matrix is that if a matrix $X$ is nilpotent, then $text{trace}(X)=0$, so it is easy to see that any matrix with 0s on the diagonal is nilpotent.
By Schur's Theorem, any $A in mathbb C ^{ntext{x}n}$ admits the decomposition $A=UTU^*$ where U is a unitary matrix and T is a triangular matrix.
We can manipulate this to show,
$$A-I=UTU^*-I=UTU^*-U^*IU=U(T-I)U^*,$$
$$(A-I)^k=U(T-I)^kU^*=0.$$
Thus $(A-I)$ is nilpotent when $T-I$ is nilpotent. Using our characteristic of Nilpotent Matrices we have, $$text{trace}(T-I)=0,$$ which holds for when $t_{ii}$ entries are equal to 1.
Finally, back to Schur's Theorem we have that $A=UTU^*$, so A is (unitarily) similar to a triangular matrix with 1s on the diagonal.
answered Jan 21 at 22:25
Joel BiffinJoel Biffin
1017
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks Joel. It looks fine, although quite different from Robert's approach. I am embarrassed by the fact that you say : when T-I is nilpotent, then A-I is nilpotent... OK, but the hypothesis is : A-I is nilpotent... Don't we need to assume the reverse : if A-I is nilpotent, then T-I is nilpotent ?
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@Andrew sorry about the wait on the response. Yes, Schur's Theorem is equality rather than an implication. In other words, if you do the substitution $V=U^*$ then you have the reverse similarity transformation $T=VAV^*$. Hence the (unitariy) similarity argument holds for both directions. A is similar to T if the decomposition exists and equivalently T is similar to A.
$endgroup$
– Joel Biffin
yesterday
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3082463%2funipotent-matrix-similar-to-an-upper-triangular-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here I work over the complex field $Bbb C$.
The main steps are (1.): show that $1$ is the only possible eigevalue of $A$; (2.) cast $A$ into Jordan form. To wit:
First, look at what the condition
$(A - I_n)^k = 0 tag 1$
reveals about the eigenvalues of $A$: that they must all be $1$, for if
$A vec x = lambda vec x = lambda I_n vec x, ; vec x ne 0, tag 2$
then
$(A - I_n) vec x = (lambda I_n - I_n) vec x = (lambda - 1)I_n vec x = (lambda - 1) vec x, tag 3$
from which we find
$(lambda - 1)^k vec x = (A - I_n)^k vec x = 0; tag 4$
now since $vec x ne 0$ we infer that
$(lambda - 1)^k = 0 Longrightarrow lambda = 1. tag 5$
Now, we may cast $A$ into Jordan normal form; that is, we may find a nonsingular matrix $P$ such that
$PAP^{-1} = D + N, tag 6$
where $D$ is a strictly diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the eigenvalues of $A$, and $N$ is strictly upper triangular; since the only eigenvalue of $A$ is $1$, we have
$PAP^{-1} = I + N, tag 7$
which is the requisite result. $OEDelta$.
answered Jan 21 at 22:15
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
47.8k23067
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
In line (4), did you mean $(lambda I_n - I_n)$ and/or $(lambda - 1)$ ?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Jan 21 at 22:21
$begingroup$
$lambda - 1$. Thanks for the catch. Will edit.
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 21 at 22:23
$begingroup$
Thanks Robert. I am not familiar with Jordan forms, But your reasoning looks clear. I will look into it in detail and I'm sure I will manage to deal with it.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here I work over the complex field $Bbb C$.
The main steps are (1.): show that $1$ is the only possible eigevalue of $A$; (2.) cast $A$ into Jordan form. To wit:
First, look at what the condition
$(A - I_n)^k = 0 tag 1$
reveals about the eigenvalues of $A$: that they must all be $1$, for if
$A vec x = lambda vec x = lambda I_n vec x, ; vec x ne 0, tag 2$
then
$(A - I_n) vec x = (lambda I_n - I_n) vec x = (lambda - 1)I_n vec x = (lambda - 1) vec x, tag 3$
from which we find
$(lambda - 1)^k vec x = (A - I_n)^k vec x = 0; tag 4$
now since $vec x ne 0$ we infer that
$(lambda - 1)^k = 0 Longrightarrow lambda = 1. tag 5$
Now, we may cast $A$ into Jordan normal form; that is, we may find a nonsingular matrix $P$ such that
$PAP^{-1} = D + N, tag 6$
where $D$ is a strictly diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the eigenvalues of $A$, and $N$ is strictly upper triangular; since the only eigenvalue of $A$ is $1$, we have
$PAP^{-1} = I + N, tag 7$
which is the requisite result. $OEDelta$.
answered Jan 21 at 22:15
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
47.8k23067
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
In line (4), did you mean $(lambda I_n - I_n)$ and/or $(lambda - 1)$ ?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Jan 21 at 22:21
$begingroup$
$lambda - 1$. Thanks for the catch. Will edit.
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 21 at 22:23
$begingroup$
Thanks Robert. I am not familiar with Jordan forms, But your reasoning looks clear. I will look into it in detail and I'm sure I will manage to deal with it.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here I work over the complex field $Bbb C$.
The main steps are (1.): show that $1$ is the only possible eigevalue of $A$; (2.) cast $A$ into Jordan form. To wit:
First, look at what the condition
$(A - I_n)^k = 0 tag 1$
reveals about the eigenvalues of $A$: that they must all be $1$, for if
$A vec x = lambda vec x = lambda I_n vec x, ; vec x ne 0, tag 2$
then
$(A - I_n) vec x = (lambda I_n - I_n) vec x = (lambda - 1)I_n vec x = (lambda - 1) vec x, tag 3$
from which we find
$(lambda - 1)^k vec x = (A - I_n)^k vec x = 0; tag 4$
now since $vec x ne 0$ we infer that
$(lambda - 1)^k = 0 Longrightarrow lambda = 1. tag 5$
Now, we may cast $A$ into Jordan normal form; that is, we may find a nonsingular matrix $P$ such that
$PAP^{-1} = D + N, tag 6$
where $D$ is a strictly diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the eigenvalues of $A$, and $N$ is strictly upper triangular; since the only eigenvalue of $A$ is $1$, we have
$PAP^{-1} = I + N, tag 7$
which is the requisite result. $OEDelta$.
answered Jan 21 at 22:15
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
47.8k23067
$endgroup$
Here I work over the complex field $Bbb C$.
The main steps are (1.): show that $1$ is the only possible eigevalue of $A$; (2.) cast $A$ into Jordan form. To wit:
First, look at what the condition
$(A - I_n)^k = 0 tag 1$
reveals about the eigenvalues of $A$: that they must all be $1$, for if
$A vec x = lambda vec x = lambda I_n vec x, ; vec x ne 0, tag 2$
then
$(A - I_n) vec x = (lambda I_n - I_n) vec x = (lambda - 1)I_n vec x = (lambda - 1) vec x, tag 3$
from which we find
$(lambda - 1)^k vec x = (A - I_n)^k vec x = 0; tag 4$
now since $vec x ne 0$ we infer that
$(lambda - 1)^k = 0 Longrightarrow lambda = 1. tag 5$
Now, we may cast $A$ into Jordan normal form; that is, we may find a nonsingular matrix $P$ such that
$PAP^{-1} = D + N, tag 6$
where $D$ is a strictly diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the eigenvalues of $A$, and $N$ is strictly upper triangular; since the only eigenvalue of $A$ is $1$, we have
$PAP^{-1} = I + N, tag 7$
which is the requisite result. $OEDelta$.
answered Jan 21 at 22:15
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
47.8k23067
edited Jan 21 at 22:23
answered Jan 21 at 22:15
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
47.8k23067
answered Jan 21 at 22:15
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
47.8k23067
answered Jan 21 at 22:15
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
47.8k23067
47.8k23067
1
$begingroup$
In line (4), did you mean $(lambda I_n - I_n)$ and/or $(lambda - 1)$ ?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Jan 21 at 22:21
$begingroup$
$lambda - 1$. Thanks for the catch. Will edit.
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 21 at 22:23
$begingroup$
Thanks Robert. I am not familiar with Jordan forms, But your reasoning looks clear. I will look into it in detail and I'm sure I will manage to deal with it.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:55
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
In line (4), did you mean $(lambda I_n - I_n)$ and/or $(lambda - 1)$ ?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Jan 21 at 22:21
$begingroup$
$lambda - 1$. Thanks for the catch. Will edit.
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 21 at 22:23
$begingroup$
Thanks Robert. I am not familiar with Jordan forms, But your reasoning looks clear. I will look into it in detail and I'm sure I will manage to deal with it.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:55
1
1
$begingroup$
In line (4), did you mean $(lambda I_n - I_n)$ and/or $(lambda - 1)$ ?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Jan 21 at 22:21
$begingroup$
In line (4), did you mean $(lambda I_n - I_n)$ and/or $(lambda - 1)$ ?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Jan 21 at 22:21
$begingroup$
$lambda - 1$. Thanks for the catch. Will edit.
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 21 at 22:23
$begingroup$
$lambda - 1$. Thanks for the catch. Will edit.
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 21 at 22:23
$begingroup$
Thanks Robert. I am not familiar with Jordan forms, But your reasoning looks clear. I will look into it in detail and I'm sure I will manage to deal with it.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:55
$begingroup$
Thanks Robert. I am not familiar with Jordan forms, But your reasoning looks clear. I will look into it in detail and I'm sure I will manage to deal with it.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have already given us that a matrix $A$ is unipotent $Longleftrightarrow$ $(A-I)^k=0$ for some $k in mathbb N$. Notice that this is an equivalent statement to saying that $A-I$ is nilpotent.
A useful characteristic of a nilpotent matrix is that if a matrix $X$ is nilpotent, then $text{trace}(X)=0$, so it is easy to see that any matrix with 0s on the diagonal is nilpotent.
By Schur's Theorem, any $A in mathbb C ^{ntext{x}n}$ admits the decomposition $A=UTU^*$ where U is a unitary matrix and T is a triangular matrix.
We can manipulate this to show,
$$A-I=UTU^*-I=UTU^*-U^*IU=U(T-I)U^*,$$
$$(A-I)^k=U(T-I)^kU^*=0.$$
Thus $(A-I)$ is nilpotent when $T-I$ is nilpotent. Using our characteristic of Nilpotent Matrices we have, $$text{trace}(T-I)=0,$$ which holds for when $t_{ii}$ entries are equal to 1.
Finally, back to Schur's Theorem we have that $A=UTU^*$, so A is (unitarily) similar to a triangular matrix with 1s on the diagonal.
answered Jan 21 at 22:25
Joel BiffinJoel Biffin
1017
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks Joel. It looks fine, although quite different from Robert's approach. I am embarrassed by the fact that you say : when T-I is nilpotent, then A-I is nilpotent... OK, but the hypothesis is : A-I is nilpotent... Don't we need to assume the reverse : if A-I is nilpotent, then T-I is nilpotent ?
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@Andrew sorry about the wait on the response. Yes, Schur's Theorem is equality rather than an implication. In other words, if you do the substitution $V=U^*$ then you have the reverse similarity transformation $T=VAV^*$. Hence the (unitariy) similarity argument holds for both directions. A is similar to T if the decomposition exists and equivalently T is similar to A.
$endgroup$
– Joel Biffin
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have already given us that a matrix $A$ is unipotent $Longleftrightarrow$ $(A-I)^k=0$ for some $k in mathbb N$. Notice that this is an equivalent statement to saying that $A-I$ is nilpotent.
A useful characteristic of a nilpotent matrix is that if a matrix $X$ is nilpotent, then $text{trace}(X)=0$, so it is easy to see that any matrix with 0s on the diagonal is nilpotent.
By Schur's Theorem, any $A in mathbb C ^{ntext{x}n}$ admits the decomposition $A=UTU^*$ where U is a unitary matrix and T is a triangular matrix.
We can manipulate this to show,
$$A-I=UTU^*-I=UTU^*-U^*IU=U(T-I)U^*,$$
$$(A-I)^k=U(T-I)^kU^*=0.$$
Thus $(A-I)$ is nilpotent when $T-I$ is nilpotent. Using our characteristic of Nilpotent Matrices we have, $$text{trace}(T-I)=0,$$ which holds for when $t_{ii}$ entries are equal to 1.
Finally, back to Schur's Theorem we have that $A=UTU^*$, so A is (unitarily) similar to a triangular matrix with 1s on the diagonal.
answered Jan 21 at 22:25
Joel BiffinJoel Biffin
1017
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks Joel. It looks fine, although quite different from Robert's approach. I am embarrassed by the fact that you say : when T-I is nilpotent, then A-I is nilpotent... OK, but the hypothesis is : A-I is nilpotent... Don't we need to assume the reverse : if A-I is nilpotent, then T-I is nilpotent ?
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@Andrew sorry about the wait on the response. Yes, Schur's Theorem is equality rather than an implication. In other words, if you do the substitution $V=U^*$ then you have the reverse similarity transformation $T=VAV^*$. Hence the (unitariy) similarity argument holds for both directions. A is similar to T if the decomposition exists and equivalently T is similar to A.
$endgroup$
– Joel Biffin
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have already given us that a matrix $A$ is unipotent $Longleftrightarrow$ $(A-I)^k=0$ for some $k in mathbb N$. Notice that this is an equivalent statement to saying that $A-I$ is nilpotent.
A useful characteristic of a nilpotent matrix is that if a matrix $X$ is nilpotent, then $text{trace}(X)=0$, so it is easy to see that any matrix with 0s on the diagonal is nilpotent.
By Schur's Theorem, any $A in mathbb C ^{ntext{x}n}$ admits the decomposition $A=UTU^*$ where U is a unitary matrix and T is a triangular matrix.
We can manipulate this to show,
$$A-I=UTU^*-I=UTU^*-U^*IU=U(T-I)U^*,$$
$$(A-I)^k=U(T-I)^kU^*=0.$$
Thus $(A-I)$ is nilpotent when $T-I$ is nilpotent. Using our characteristic of Nilpotent Matrices we have, $$text{trace}(T-I)=0,$$ which holds for when $t_{ii}$ entries are equal to 1.
Finally, back to Schur's Theorem we have that $A=UTU^*$, so A is (unitarily) similar to a triangular matrix with 1s on the diagonal.
answered Jan 21 at 22:25
Joel BiffinJoel Biffin
1017
$endgroup$
You have already given us that a matrix $A$ is unipotent $Longleftrightarrow$ $(A-I)^k=0$ for some $k in mathbb N$. Notice that this is an equivalent statement to saying that $A-I$ is nilpotent.
A useful characteristic of a nilpotent matrix is that if a matrix $X$ is nilpotent, then $text{trace}(X)=0$, so it is easy to see that any matrix with 0s on the diagonal is nilpotent.
By Schur's Theorem, any $A in mathbb C ^{ntext{x}n}$ admits the decomposition $A=UTU^*$ where U is a unitary matrix and T is a triangular matrix.
We can manipulate this to show,
$$A-I=UTU^*-I=UTU^*-U^*IU=U(T-I)U^*,$$
$$(A-I)^k=U(T-I)^kU^*=0.$$
Thus $(A-I)$ is nilpotent when $T-I$ is nilpotent. Using our characteristic of Nilpotent Matrices we have, $$text{trace}(T-I)=0,$$ which holds for when $t_{ii}$ entries are equal to 1.
Finally, back to Schur's Theorem we have that $A=UTU^*$, so A is (unitarily) similar to a triangular matrix with 1s on the diagonal.
answered Jan 21 at 22:25
Joel BiffinJoel Biffin
1017
answered Jan 21 at 22:25
Joel BiffinJoel Biffin
1017
answered Jan 21 at 22:25
Joel BiffinJoel Biffin
1017
answered Jan 21 at 22:25
Joel BiffinJoel Biffin
1017
1017
$begingroup$
Thanks Joel. It looks fine, although quite different from Robert's approach. I am embarrassed by the fact that you say : when T-I is nilpotent, then A-I is nilpotent... OK, but the hypothesis is : A-I is nilpotent... Don't we need to assume the reverse : if A-I is nilpotent, then T-I is nilpotent ?
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@Andrew sorry about the wait on the response. Yes, Schur's Theorem is equality rather than an implication. In other words, if you do the substitution $V=U^*$ then you have the reverse similarity transformation $T=VAV^*$. Hence the (unitariy) similarity argument holds for both directions. A is similar to T if the decomposition exists and equivalently T is similar to A.
$endgroup$
– Joel Biffin
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks Joel. It looks fine, although quite different from Robert's approach. I am embarrassed by the fact that you say : when T-I is nilpotent, then A-I is nilpotent... OK, but the hypothesis is : A-I is nilpotent... Don't we need to assume the reverse : if A-I is nilpotent, then T-I is nilpotent ?
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@Andrew sorry about the wait on the response. Yes, Schur's Theorem is equality rather than an implication. In other words, if you do the substitution $V=U^*$ then you have the reverse similarity transformation $T=VAV^*$. Hence the (unitariy) similarity argument holds for both directions. A is similar to T if the decomposition exists and equivalently T is similar to A.
$endgroup$
– Joel Biffin
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks Joel. It looks fine, although quite different from Robert's approach. I am embarrassed by the fact that you say : when T-I is nilpotent, then A-I is nilpotent... OK, but the hypothesis is : A-I is nilpotent... Don't we need to assume the reverse : if A-I is nilpotent, then T-I is nilpotent ?
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 10:01
$begingroup$
Thanks Joel. It looks fine, although quite different from Robert's approach. I am embarrassed by the fact that you say : when T-I is nilpotent, then A-I is nilpotent... OK, but the hypothesis is : A-I is nilpotent... Don't we need to assume the reverse : if A-I is nilpotent, then T-I is nilpotent ?
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@Andrew sorry about the wait on the response. Yes, Schur's Theorem is equality rather than an implication. In other words, if you do the substitution $V=U^*$ then you have the reverse similarity transformation $T=VAV^*$. Hence the (unitariy) similarity argument holds for both directions. A is similar to T if the decomposition exists and equivalently T is similar to A.
$endgroup$
– Joel Biffin
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Andrew sorry about the wait on the response. Yes, Schur's Theorem is equality rather than an implication. In other words, if you do the substitution $V=U^*$ then you have the reverse similarity transformation $T=VAV^*$. Hence the (unitariy) similarity argument holds for both directions. A is similar to T if the decomposition exists and equivalently T is similar to A.
$endgroup$
– Joel Biffin
yesterday
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.
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%2f3082463%2funipotent-matrix-similar-to-an-upper-triangular-matrix%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
1
$begingroup$
What's your ground field? Are you familiar with Jordan normal form? You can look this up on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– jflipp
Jan 21 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Unfortunately not...
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jan 22 at 9:48