7

Let $f:M_n(F)\rightarrow M_n(F), X\mapsto AX-XA$. If $f$ is diagonalizable, I want to show that $A$ is diagonalizable. I'd prefer to avoid Jordan Blocks. I know that $f$ is diagonalizable if and only if:

  • its minimal polynomial is square-free, or
  • there exist $d$ linearly independent eigenvectors where $d = \dim M_n(F)$, or
  • the characteristic polynomial of $f$ factors into linear terms and each geometric multiplicity equals the corresponding algebraic multiplicity.
Arctic Char
  • 16,007
RainField
  • 436

3 Answers3

3

If $F$ is a splitting field for $A$ (e.g. when $F$ is algebraically closed), we may prove the statement as follows.

Proof 1. (A simplified version of user8675309’s answer.) Let $\lambda\in F$ be an eigenvalue of $A$ and $v\in F^n$ be a corresponding left eigenvector. Let $B=A-\lambda I$. Define $g:M_n(F)\to M_n(F)$ by $g(X)=BX$. Since $A$ and $B$ commute, so do $f_A$ and $g$. Moreover, for any vector $x\in F^n$, we have $$ f_A(xv^T)=Axv^T-xv^TA=Axv^T-x(\lambda v^T)=Bxv^T=g(xv^T). $$ It follows that $(m(f_A))xv^T=(m(g))xv^T=m(B)xv^T$ for every polynomial $m\in F[x]$. In particular, when $m$ is the minimal polynomial of $f$, we have $m(B)xv^T=0$. Since $x$ is arbitrary and $v$ is nonzero, we must have $m(B)=0$. Hence the minimal polynomial of $B$ divides $m$. However, as $f_A$ is diagonalisable over $F$, $m$ is a product of distinct linear factors. Therefore the minimal polynomial of $B$ is also a product of distinct linear factors. This means $B$ is diagonalisable over $F$. In turn, $A=B+\lambda I$ is diagonalisable over $F$ too.

Proof 2. Since $F$ is a splitting field for $A$, $A$ admits a Jordan-Chevalley decomposition $S+N$. As $S$ is diagonalisable, so is $f_S$. In fact, if $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ is an eigenbasis of $S$, then $\{v_iv_j^T: i,j\in[n]\}$ will be an eigenbasis of $f_S$. One may also verify that $f_N$ is nilpotent (with $f_N^{2n-1}=0$), $f_S$ commutes with $f_N$, and $f_A=f_S+f_N$. Therefore $f_S+f_N$ is a Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $f_A$. By assumption, $f_A$ is diagonalisable. Hence $f_N=0$. In turn, $N=0$. Therefore $A=S$ is diagonalisable.

user1551
  • 139,064
  • Can you give me some hits about how to prove the existence of the left eigenvector $v$ of $A$? – RainField Mar 27 '24 at 08:33
  • @RainField This is true by assumption. I assume that $F$ is a splitting field for $A$, i.e., $A$ has $n$ eigenvalues in $F$. And by the definition of eigenvalue, whenever it exists, a corresponding eigenvector exists. I have asked you (in a comment under your question) whether you assume $F$ to be algebraically closed or not, but you didn’t respond. So, I made my own assumptions. – user1551 Mar 27 '24 at 08:37
  • 1
    Oh Thank you! I understand it! I didn't respond because I'm not familiar with abstract algebra ; ; – RainField Mar 27 '24 at 09:09
  • 1
    @RainField $xv^T$ is a rank-one matrix. It cannot possibly be invertible when $n>1$. Anyway, let $u=m(B)x$. Then $uv^T=m(B)xv^T=0$. By comparing the elements on both sides, we get $u_iv_j=0$ for all $(i,j)$. Since $v$ is nonzero, some $v_j$ is nonzero. Hence $u_i=0$ for all $i$, i.e., $u=0$. (Alternatively, pick any vector $w$ such that $v^Tw=1$. Then $u=u(1)=u(v^Tw)=(uv^T)w=0w=0$.) Thus $m(B)x=0$ for all vectors $x$. This means $m(B)=0$. – user1551 Mar 27 '24 at 09:28
  • Thank you very much! – RainField Mar 27 '24 at 12:24
2

I assume $\mathbb F$ is algebraically closed (or at least a splitting field for $A$) and $\text{char }\mathbb F \neq 2$.
Let $\lambda$ be an arbitrary eigenvalue for $A$ and $B:= \big(A-\lambda I\big)$. We need to show $\lambda$ is semi-simple $\iff \dim \ker B \leq \dim \ker B^2$ is met with equality. We can re-write $f$ as
$f\big(X\big) = AX - XA = AX - XA - \lambda I X - X (-\lambda I) = BX - XB$

Now suppose for contradiction that $\dim \ker B \lt \dim \ker B^2$
i.e. there is some $\mathbf x \in \ker B^2$ but not in the nullspace of $B$ and some corresponding $\mathbf y^T$ is the left nullspace of $B^2$ but not in the left nullspace of $B$ and set $X:=\mathbf {xy}^T$

(i.) if $X \in \ker f$
$\mathbf 0 = f\Big(f\big(X\Big)\Big)= f^2\big(X\big) = B^2X + XB^2 - 2BXB=-2BXB = -2\big(B\mathbf x\big)\big(\mathbf y^TB\big)$
which contradicts $\mathbf x,\mathbf y^T$ not being in the right and left nullspaces of $B$ respectively

(ii.) if $X \not\in \ker f \implies X \not\in \ker f^3$
since $f$ is diagonalizable
$\mathbf 0 \neq f\Big(f^2\big(X\Big)\Big)= f\big(-2BXB\big)=B\big(-2BXB\big)-\big(-2BXB\big)B =-2B^2XB + 2BXB^2 = \mathbf 0 +\mathbf 0$
which is another contradiction

conclude $\lambda$ is semi-simple and $A$ is diagonalizable


remark on characteristic 2
Part (ii) is even easier and reads
$\mathbf 0 \neq f^3\big(X\big) = f\Big(f^2\big(X\big)\Big)= f\Big(2BXB\Big) = f\Big(0BXB\Big)=\mathbf 0$

Part (i) reads
$\mathbf 0 =f\big(X\big)=BX -XB=BX +XB$
i.e. $BX=XB \neq \mathbf 0$. But $\big(B\mathbf x\big)\big(\mathbf y^T B\big) =BXB =B^2X =\mathbf 0$, generating the same contradiction as before, albeit with the scalar of $2$ removed.

user8675309
  • 10,034
  • Given that $f$ is diagonalisable over $F$, do you know whether $F$ is necessarily a splitting field for $A$ or not? This is true if $F=\mathbb R$, but I have no idea for other fields. – user1551 Mar 26 '24 at 04:40
  • Can you give me some hits why $\dim B^2$ is the geometric multiplicity of
    $\lambda$?
    – RainField Mar 26 '24 at 04:50
  • @user1551 your guess is probably as good as mine. My read on OP's diagonalizability criterion [algebraic multiplicities = geometric multiplicities, which I pursued] was that we should assume $A$'s characteristic polynomial splits linearly. I thought characteristic 2 was rather more curious here. – user8675309 Mar 26 '24 at 04:51
  • since $\dim\ker B^2 = \dim\ker B$ use your recent answer here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4874177/show-textim-f-cap-textker-f-0-iff-textker-f-circ-f-tex/ plus rank-nullity to argue that $V= \text{image }B \oplus \ker B$, i.e. we may choose basis $\mathbf B$ having the first $m$ vectors be a basis for $\ker B$ and the remaining $n-m$ vectors a basis for $\text{image }B$, then $B\mathbf B = \mathbf B\left[\begin{array}{cc} \mathbf 0 &\mathbf 0 \ \mathbf 0 & B_{n-m} \end{array} \right]$ where $\det\big(B_{n-m}\big)\neq 0$ so eigenvalue 0 is semi-simple – user8675309 Mar 26 '24 at 22:18
  • @user1551, re, I have commented on this in my answer. – LSpice Mar 28 '24 at 17:54
2

In a comment elsewhere, @Justauser pointed out that, for separably closed fields, your claim follows from the general machinery that algebraic representations carry semisimple (respectively, nilpotent) elements to semisimple (respectively, nilpotent elements). (See Theorem 4.4 of Borel - Linear algebraic groups for the result in the generality in which I have stated it, and Proposition 1.24 of version 2.00 of Milne - Lie algebras, algebraic groups, and Lie groups for the special case of interest here.) $\DeclareMathOperator\ad{ad}\DeclareMathOperator\End{End}$Thus, writing $\ad$ for the algebraic representation $\End_F(F^n) \to \End_F(\End_F(F^n))$ of $\End_F(F^n)$ on itself given by $Y \mapsto (X \mapsto X Y - Y X)$, we have that $\ad(A_\text s)$ is semisimple, $\ad(A_\text n)$ is nilpotent, and (by the Jacobi identity!) they commute, so that $\ad(A) = \ad(A_\text s) + \ad(A_\text n)$ is the Jordan decomposition of $\ad(A)$. In particular, if $\ad(A)$ is semisimple, then $\ad(A_\text n)$ equals $0$, so $A_\text n$ is central in $\End_F(F^n)$; but the centre of $\End_F(F^n)$ consists of the scalar matrices, of which the only nilpotent one is the $0$ matrix. So $A_\text n$ equals $0$, and hence $A = A_\text s$ is semisimple. Over a separably closed field (or, as, for example, @user1551 observed, even just a field that contains all eigenvalues of $A$), this implies that $A$ is diagonalisable.

In general, we seem to be able to conclude only that $A$ is semisimple, not necessarily diagonalisable; but let's dig a bit deeper. We have that the eigenvalues of $\ad(A)$ are the differences of eigenvalues of $A$ (see, for example, @Justauser's answer to What are the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\operatorname{ad}_x$ for non-diagonalizable $x$?); so, if $\ad(A)$ is diagonalisable, then every pair of eigenvalues of $A$ differ by an element of $F$. In particular, since $A$ is $F$-rational, so that its eigenvalues are closed under the action of the absolute Galois group of $F$, we have for every eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $A$ and every $\sigma$ in the absolute Galois group of $F$ that $\sigma(\lambda) - \lambda$ belongs to $F$, so that, if $m$ is the order of the restriction of $\sigma$ to the Galois closure of $F[\lambda]$, then $\sum_{i = 0}^{m - 1} \sigma^i\left(\sigma(\lambda) - \lambda\right)$ equals both $\sigma^m(\lambda) - \lambda = 0$ and $m(\sigma(\lambda) - \lambda))$. If $F$ has characteristic $0$, or, more generally, if the Galois closure $E$ of every extension of $F$ of degree at most $n$ satisfies $[E : F] \ne 0$ in $F$, then this implies that $\sigma(\lambda) - \lambda$ is $0$. Since $\sigma$ was an arbitrary element of the Galois group, this implies that $\lambda$ belongs to $F$. Since $\lambda$ was an arbitrary eigenvalue of $A$ (and we already know that $A$ is semisimple), this implies that $A$ is diagonalisable.

If $F$ has characteristic $p > 0$, then $A$ can fail to be diagonalisable. For one family of examples, suppose that $F$ admits a cyclic, Galois extension $E$ of degree divisible by $p$. Fix a generator $\sigma$ of $\operatorname{Gal}(E/F)$. By the additive version of Hilbert's theorem 90 (see, for example, Theorem 6.3 of Lang - Algebra), there is an element $\lambda \in E$ such that $\sigma(\lambda) - \lambda$ is a non-$0$ element of $F$. Then the operator $A$ of multiplication by $\lambda$ on $E$ is an element of $\End_F(E)$ such that $\ad(A)$ is diagonalisable, but $A$ itself is not diagonalisable. For a concrete example of this, you might consider the cubic extension $E$ of $F = \mathbb F_3$ obtained by adjoining a root $\lambda$ of the polynomial $X^3 - X - 1 \in F[X]$, irreducible because it is cubic and has no roots in $F$, with $\sigma$ being the cubing map on $E$. Then, by construction, $\lambda^3 - \lambda$ equals $1 \in F$.

LSpice
  • 2,687
  • 1
    Good job on the Galois part! A trivial remark: In the case of $\sigma(\lambda)-\lambda$ all in $F$ , we have $\tau(\sigma(\lambda)-\lambda)=\sigma(\lambda)-\lambda$ so $\tau(\sigma(\lambda))-\lambda = (\tau(\lambda)-\lambda)+(\sigma(\lambda)-\lambda)$, that is $\sigma\mapsto \sigma(\lambda)-\lambda$ defines a homomorphism from Galois to $(F, +)$. When $\text{char}(F)=0, \lambda\not\in F$, the Galois group of the normal closure of $\lambda$ over $F$ will have an infinite quotient. When $\text{char}(F)>0$, Artin-Schreier concerns $a\mapsto a^p-a$, as in your example $X^3-X-1$. – Just a user Mar 31 '24 at 07:50
  • @Justauser, thanks for your comment! I'm not sure I understand—are you offering a correction, or an alternate perspective? (For example, it's not clear to me if you are claiming that the case of $\operatorname{char}(F) = 0$, $\lambda \notin F$ can occur, or giving another version of an argument for why it cannot.) – LSpice Mar 31 '24 at 14:21
  • 1
    a different perspective without summing up $\sigma^i$ for $i=0, \cdots, m-1$: It cannot occur, because the finite Galois group cannot have an infinite quotient (I should have made it clear, but reached the limit for number of characters allowed in a comment). – Just a user Mar 31 '24 at 14:29
  • 1
    @Justauser, re, nice arguments; thanks! – LSpice Mar 31 '24 at 23:14