2

I determined the set of all matrices $A$ such that $AB = BA$ for all $B$ in $GL_n(\mathbb R)$ to be the set of $\lambda I$. Now I'm not sure this is true. But quite sure. So I tried to prove it and it seems to work. But I'm not sure my proof is right.

Please can somebody tell me if my proof is right?

I claim that $Z(GL_n(\mathbb R)) = \{\lambda I \mid \lambda \in \mathbb R\}$.

Note that if $D = \lambda I$ and $A$ is any matrix then

$$(DA)_{ij} = \lambda \sum_k \delta_{ik} a_{kj} = \lambda a_{ij}$$

and

$$(AD)_{ij} = \lambda \sum_k \delta_{kj} a_{ik} = \lambda a_{ij}$$

So if $D$ is a diagonal matrix and $A$ any matrix then $AD = DA$.

Now the other direction: $Z(GL_n(\mathbb R)) \subseteq \{\lambda I \mid \lambda \in \mathbb R\}$.

Let $D$ be a matrix that commutes with all matrices: $AD = DA$. Now by contradiction let $D$ be the matrix that is $\lambda$ on the diagonal and zero everywhere else except $D_{i_0j_0=1}$. Then because

$$ (AB)_{ij} = \sum_k a_{ik}b_{kj}$$

and

$$ (BA)_{ij} = \sum_k b_{ik}a_{kj}$$

we have

$$ (AB)_{ij} = \sum_k a_{ik}b_{kj}$$

and then

$$ (DA)_{i_0j_0} = d_{i_0i_0}a_{i_0j_0} + d_{i_0j_0}a_{j_0j_0} = \lambda a_{i_0j_0} + a_{j_0j_0}$$

$$ (AD)_{i_0j_0} = d_{i_0j_0}a_{i_0j_0} + d_{j_0j_0}a_{i_0i_0} = a_{j_0j_0} + \lambda a_{i_0i_0}$$

are not equal.

learner
  • 217

3 Answers3

6

Take $$B=\mathrm{diag}(b_1,\dots,b_n)\quad \text{with }b_i\neq 0\text{ and }b_i\neq b_j$$ clearly$B\in Gl_n(\mathbb{R})$ Since $A,B$ commute $$BAe_i=ABe_i=b_iAe_i$$ hence $Ae_i=\lambda_i e_i$ because the eigenvalues of $B$ are not degenerate. So $A=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$

Let $P_{ij}$ be the Permutation that exchanges the basis vector $e_i$ with $e_j$, note that $P_{ij}^{-1}=P_{ji}$ and therefore $P_{ij}\in Gl_n(\mathbb{R})$. Now we have $$PAe_j=\lambda_jPe_j=\lambda_je_i$$ On the other hand $$APe_j=Ae_i=\lambda_ie_i$$ So to commute with $P_{ij}$, $\lambda_i=\lambda_j$. Since this applies to all $\lambda_i$, we can set$\lambda_1=\dots=\lambda_n=:\lambda$ and hence $A=\lambda I$

Michael
  • 669
  • This is so far the only correct proof (and it is the standard one). – gniourf_gniourf Jun 30 '14 at 19:07
  • It's good, but I don't understand the phrase "the eigenvectors of $B$ are not degenerated". –  Jun 30 '14 at 19:28
  • This means that to every eigenvalue there is exactly one eigenvector (in this case $b_i$ corresponds to $e_i$) (except for an constant factor $\lambda$ that you can always multiply an eigenvector with). We have $B(Ae_i)=b_iAe_i$ and therefore $Ae_i$ also corresponds to $b_i$ from which we can conclude that $Ae_i= \lambda e_i$ for an $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ – Michael Jun 30 '14 at 19:42
  • I understand the argument, but I don't believe that "degenerated" is a word in English. Anyway, thanks for your nice solution! –  Jun 30 '14 at 19:45
  • What would be the correct term for this?(I'm not a native speaker) – Michael Jun 30 '14 at 19:47
  • 2
    I'm not sure what the best way is to express this, but I would have written that the "eigenspaces of $B$ are one dimensional", instead of "the eigenvectors of $B$ are not degenerated". –  Jun 30 '14 at 19:52
  • I searched the web and wikipedia tells me that the term "degenerated eigenvalue" does exist (i've written eigenvector mistakenly). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29#Elsewhere – Michael Jun 30 '14 at 20:22
  • Ah! Nice find. But degenerate, not degenerated. –  Jun 30 '14 at 20:27
  • 1
    @gniourf_gniourf Yeah. Except the question is not asking for a proof. It's asking for a proof-verification. – Rudy the Reindeer Jul 01 '14 at 06:05
2

The first part is a correct proof of the statement $$ \{\lambda I \mid \lambda \in \mathbb R\} \subseteq Z(GL_n(\mathbb R)) . $$ This is the easy part. For the second part you must prove $$ Z(GL_n(\mathbb R)) \subseteq \{\lambda I \mid \lambda \in \mathbb R\}. $$ This part is not correct. You have only shown that if $D \in Z(GL_n(\mathbb R))$ and $D$ is very special, then $D = \lambda I$. For a correct proof, choose a general $D \in Z(GL_n(\mathbb R))$ and consider very special matrices $A$, for example $A_{i_0j_0} = 1$ and $A_{ij} = 0$ for all other $(i,j)$. Work out $DA$ and $AD$ and see what you can do with that.

Hans Engler
  • 16,092
  • You can't consider such matrices since they need to be in $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$. – gniourf_gniourf Jun 30 '14 at 18:48
  • A suitable matrix (should one desire to use this method) is $(I + A)$ for the matrices $A$ described here. – Ben Grossmann Jun 30 '14 at 20:20
  • @gniourf_gniourf - correct point. But by density, this is not a problem. – Hans Engler Jun 30 '14 at 23:55
  • Correct, but it must be mentioned for the proof to be correct. – gniourf_gniourf Jul 01 '14 at 07:46
  • @HansEngler Thank you for your answer. What does by density mean? I don't understand why it is ok to use non invertible matrices. Please can you elaborate? – learner Jul 03 '14 at 14:42
  • @learner - the matrices I proposed are not in $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$, bu they can be approximated arbitrarily closely by matrices from this set. E.g. take any such matrix $A$ and add a small multiple of the identity matrix $\delta I_n$. Then consider the resulting algebraic relation and send $\delta$ to $0$. The result is the same as if you had used the original $A$ (which was however not allowed, since these matrices are not invertible). That's an example of a density argument. – Hans Engler Jul 03 '14 at 15:52
  • Ok, thank you, I almost understand: If $A$ is not invertible is it clear that $A + \delta I$ is invertible for $\delta$ small enough? Or do I not understand your argument? – learner Jul 03 '14 at 15:56
  • I get it. With the matrices in your answer it is true (but not for arbitrary $A$). – learner Jul 03 '14 at 15:57
  • Please, if you can and don't mind, would you add some explanation of this density argument to your answer? I will accept your answer. I understand the approximation but I am still unsure about why it is ok to argue like this. – learner Jul 03 '14 at 15:59
0

You can also do the proof by constructing a matrix $E$ , that has a $1$ in some off-diagonal term $e_{ij}$ and is zero elsewhere. Then , for any matrix $M$ in $GL(n;\mathbb R)$, we have: $$EM=(m_{ji}) ; ME=(m_{ij})$$, so that $E$ commutes only with matrices with $m_{ij}=m_{ji}$. So now we only need to show that there are matrices $M$ in $GL(n; \mathbb R)$ with $m_{ij} \neq m_{ji}$ (which should not be too hard), and then use the fact that $(M+E)(M')=ME+ME'$.

user99680
  • 6,836
  • 16
  • 25
  • You can't use such matrices $E$ since they are not in $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$. – gniourf_gniourf Jun 30 '14 at 18:49
  • @gniourf_gniourf: But I thought we were considering the center of $Gl(n,\mathbb R)$ within $M_n \mathbb R$. We can do this and then find the intersection with $Gl( n, \mathbb R)$ – user99680 Jun 30 '14 at 18:57
  • If you do so, you'll need to use some topological argument like $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$ is dense in $M_n(\mathbb{R})$. Not the prettiest thing (and also, it's useless). Besides, the center of $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$ within $M_n(\mathbb{R})$ doesn't mean anything. – gniourf_gniourf Jun 30 '14 at 19:00
  • Why? We just consider the center of GL(n,R) within M_n(R), and then do a set-theoretic intersection; if we show the center within M_n(R) is D, then D is also the center within Gl(n,R). – user99680 Jun 30 '14 at 19:02
  • No you can't, because the set of matrices that commute with $M_n(\mathbb{R})$ is trivially included in the set of matrices that commute with $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$, but the inclusion the other way round (the one you need, actually) must be justified. – gniourf_gniourf Jun 30 '14 at 19:05
  • O.K, I have to go, so I will delete the post , then come back later and see if I can rescue it. – user99680 Jun 30 '14 at 19:09
  • @gniourf_gniourf You don't need a topological argument. $M_n(\mathbb R)$ is the real linear span of $GL_n(\mathbb R)$. – user1551 Jun 30 '14 at 20:54
  • @user1551 right, and if $B$, $B'$ commute with $A$, then for all $\lambda,\mu\in\mathbb{R}$, $\lambda B+\mu B'$ commutes with $A$. But there is something to say, and as is, the proof given here is not valid. Besides, it also requires the justification of $M_n(\mathbb{R})$ being the linear span of $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$. – gniourf_gniourf Jun 30 '14 at 21:03
  • I tried to just give a hint, and avoid the ugliness you mention, but maybe I was too far-off. Or maybe I was just too lazy. Do you suggest I delete? I won't have much time to improve on this any time soon. – user99680 Jun 30 '14 at 21:08