3

Let $A$ be a complex matrix such that $A^n = I$, show that $A$ is diagonalisable.

How do I do this?


I would hazard a guess that since $A^n = I$ that means that $A^n$ is obvious diagonal, and I suppose that a diagonal matrix can only be formed by the square of another diagonal matrix, but I am not sure if that is the case. Also I think this neglects the complex cases.

Is there a Jordan block argument that I should use?

Jessica
  • 33

2 Answers2

4

His airness Jordan does not play here. Let $k$ be a field and $A\in \mathbf{M}_n(k)$ a matrix. Then $A$ is a diagonalizable over $k$ if and only if its minimal polynomial is split with distincts roots. But in your case the minimal polynomial divides $X^n - 1$ who has distinct roots and all non constant polynomials are split, because you are over $\mathbf{C}$.

Detail for the split part. It uses the following well-known fact : over any algebraically closed field, any non constant polynomial is split (i.e. product of polynomials of degree $1$). Indeed : take a polynomial $P$ that is non constant : it has a root $z$ because $k$ is algebraically closed, so that you can write $P(X) = (X-z)Q(X)$ and continue with $Q$, which again has a root... Finally, $\mathbf{C}$ is algebraically closed, and this is a standard result.

Remark 1. $A$ is trigonalizable over $k$ if and only if its characteristic polynomial over $k$ is split.

Remark 2. I won't give details as they are in any good course. To prove the previously stated equivalences for diagonalizability or trigonalizability, you don't need Jordan normal form (JNF). For trigonalizability one direction is obvious and the other one is done by induction and uses the fact that a root of a characteristic polynomial is an eigenvalue. For diagonalizability one direction results from the kernel decomposition theorem (which does not use JNF and uses only Bézout) and the other is obvious. By the way, you don't need Schur's lemma, nor Cayley-Hamilton.

Olórin
  • 12,040
  • Can you explain the split part please? – Jessica Mar 14 '15 at 11:53
  • I think the question implicitly means "diagonalizable" over an extension field, which is the standard use. – Geoff Robinson Mar 14 '15 at 11:55
  • @Jessica See my edit to my answer – Olórin Mar 14 '15 at 11:56
  • That the minimal polynomial has only linear factors implies diagonalizability is a fact that uses JNF. To be honest, I don't think it must use JNF, Schür might be enough. In any case I suspect that this problem preceeds Cayley-Hamilton. – Git Gud Mar 14 '15 at 12:00
  • @GitGud What I say is that to prove the equivalence for diagonalizabitly or trigonalizability, you don't need JNF. For trigo one direction is obvious and the other one is done by induction. For diago one direction results from the kernel decomposition theorem (which don't use JNF and uses Bézout) and the other is obvious. Btw, you don't even need Schur's lemma... Nor Cayley-Hamilton. – Olórin Mar 14 '15 at 12:04
  • Hopefully one day it will be obvious for me... – Jessica Mar 14 '15 at 12:06
  • @Jessica Find a good course on the subject and work it out. Then you'll see. ;-) Anyway, is my answer clear ? – Olórin Mar 14 '15 at 12:09
  • @user10000100_u It is as clear as my knowledge on some of the terms is, so tomorrow it will be clear, but today it is not. – Jessica Mar 14 '15 at 12:12
  • @Jessica Ok ! If you need more clarifications, don't hesitate to ask. – Olórin Mar 14 '15 at 12:15
  • isn't this what i said in my comment? i like the reference to the basketball god jordan. – abel Mar 14 '15 at 12:31
2

If $J$ is the Jordan canonical form of $A$, then $J^n=I$, so the same identity holds for every Jordan block. Thus you can work with an upper triangular matrix $A$ of order $m$ (where $m\le n$) with the same diagonal coefficients, and $A^n=I$.

Let $\varepsilon$ be the common coefficient on the diagonal, so $A=\varepsilon I+B$ where $B=[b_{ij}]$ is nilpotent and nonzero, if $m>1$. From $A^n=I$ we get $$ I=\sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k}\varepsilon^{n-k}B^k $$ When you consider $B^k$ with $k>1$, the coefficients in positions $(i,i+1)$ (for $i=1,\dots,m-1$) are zero, so we conclude that $b_{i,i+1}=0$. Similarly, the coefficients in positions $(i,i+2)$ are zero in $B^k$ for $k>2$, so $b_{i,i+2}=0$ and we can go on. Thus $B$ is diagonal. Since $A$ is a Jordan block, assuming $m>1$ is a contradiction.

egreg
  • 238,574
  • I don't understand the line "So the same identity holds for every Jordan block" –  Mar 15 '15 at 03:22
  • @Committingtoachallenge The $n$-th power of a matrix in Jordan form are obtained by raising each block to the exponent $n$. – egreg Mar 15 '15 at 09:26
  • Oh I knew that, I just didn't understand how it was phrased - thanks for clarifying. –  Mar 15 '15 at 10:13