1

$$X = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} w & x \\ y & z \end{array} \right)$$

$$Y = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} w & y \\ x & z \end{array} \right)$$

I know that matrix $X$ is similar to matrix $Y$ when $Y=S^{-1}XS$ for some invertible matrix $S$. So consider:

$$S = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} a & b \\ c & d \end{array} \right)$$

$$S^{-1} = \frac{1}{ad-bc}\left( \begin{array}{ccc} d & -b \\ -c & a \end{array} \right)$$

I was thinking that we could compute $S^{-1}XS$ and set that equal to $X$, but I was wondering if there was an easier way to determine whether $X$ is similar to $Y$ for all $w,x,y,z$. When I tried to solve the multiplication by hand the expressions got very long, so I'm assuming there must be some trick I'm not seeing.

2 Answers2

1

Note that $Y=X^t$.

Case 1: If there exist some matrix $S$ such that $S^{-1}XS=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda_1& \\ &\lambda_2 \\ \end{array} \right)$, then $X\simeq S^{-1}XS=(S^{-1}XS)^t=S^t Y (S^t)^{-1}\simeq Y$.

Case 2: If there exist some matrix $S$ such that $X\simeq S^{-1}XS=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda&1 \\ 0&\lambda \\ \end{array} \right)$, then $Y\simeq S^t Y (S^t)^{-1}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda&0 \\ 1&\lambda \\ \end{array} \right)$, and $\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0&1 \\ 1&0 \\ \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda&1 \\ 0&\lambda \\ \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0&1 \\ 1&0 \\ \end{array} \right)=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda&0 \\ 1&\lambda \\ \end{array} \right)$, so $X\simeq Y$.

In case 1 and Case 2, the only problem is that the matrix may not in $M_2(\mathbb{R})$. If $X\in M_2(\mathbb{R})$, then you can find a matrix $S\in M_2(\mathbb{C})$ first, such that $Y=S^{-1}XS$ or $SY=XS$, write $S=U+iV, U,V\in M_2(\mathbb{R})$, then $UY=XU$ and $VY=XV$, the polynimial $\det(U+\lambda V)\neq0$, because $\det(U+iV)=\det(S)\neq0$, so there exist some $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$, such that $U+\lambda V$ invertible and $(U+\lambda V)Y=X(U+\lambda V)$.

Moreover, $\forall X\in M_n(\mathbb{R})$, $X\simeq X^t$, you can prove this by induction on $n$.

Alfred Chern
  • 2,658
  • Cases 1 and 2 are not exhaustive, unless one is working over an algebraically closed field (OP is clearly not considering field extensions). – Marc van Leeuwen Oct 18 '14 at 08:49
0

Yes every matrix$~X$ is similar to its transpose (over its field of definition). However there is no easy formula that expresses the a valid base change matrix$~S$ (for which there is a lot of choice) in terms of$~X$. This means that you attempts to solve explicitly for$~S$ are not likely to lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

For the $2\times2$ case one can see that there is always a solution for $S$ by writing down the equation $XS=SY$ (where $X$ and $Y=X^t$ are fixed) which is a linear equation in that coordinates $a,b,c,d$ of $S$ (which are the unknowns here). The equations are trivial when $X$ is a multiple of the identity matrix (i.e., when $x$, $y$ and $w-z$ are all zero), so we can exclude that case henceforth. Then the equations force $b=c$ (in several ways) which means you need $S$ to be symmetric. Assuming that (and dropping the unknown$~c$) there one linear equation in terms of $a,b,d$ that remains, which is $ya+(z-w)b-xd=0$. This defines a $2$-dimensional subspace of matrices. One is not quite done, because one needs to show that the expression $ad-b^2$ for $\det S$, which needs to be nonzero so to have a true solution, does not vanish everywhere on the subspace. But the zeros of this quadratic form form a cone, which contains $1$-dimensional subspaces but no $2$-dimensional ones.

  • How do you typically show the result using elementary properties? I'm in an introductory course and we haven't covered many of the terms mentioned in your answer to the other question. – Joe Shmoe Oct 18 '14 at 08:59
  • @JoeShmoe: I've expanded my answer with an elementary argument for the $2\times2$ case (over the real numbers). It shows that one can argue the existence of $S$ by elementary means. It is an interesting exercise, though I'm not sure it really gives a lot of insight. In fact it shows explicitly giving an $S$ that works in all cases is hard. I think really understanding why this works requires some structure theory. – Marc van Leeuwen Oct 18 '14 at 11:09