Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am a little stuck on this Matrix problem. Suppose that for complex square matrix A,B the following holds:

$AB -BA = A$ Show that $\det(A)=0$

That would mean that A has no inverse. So I thought, let's suppose there exists an Inverse element and that would lead me to a contradiction later on.

$AB = A + BA \implies AB = A(I+B)$ multiply though with $(AB)^{-1}$

$I = B^{-1}A^{-1}A(I+B)$


$I=B^{-1} +I$ so $B^{-1}$ is equal to $0$. Contradiction in my view. Or what does this mean? Could you please help me interpret? :)

Thanks in advance!

share|improve this question
$(A+BA)$ does not equal $A(I+B)$. You also assume $B$ is invertible without justification. –  Chris Eagle Mar 27 '12 at 19:21
Even if you assume that $A$ has an inverse, how do you conclude that $AB$ has an inverse? –  Arturo Magidin Mar 27 '12 at 19:22
What you do have is $ABA^{-1} = I + B$... –  Dustan Levenstein Mar 27 '12 at 19:23

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

As I already noted, what you can derive from $AB = A+BA$ is $ABA^{-1} = I + B$. Conjugation must preserve eigenvalues, but adding $I$ clearly changes the set of eigenvalues, because if $B v = \lambda v$, then $(I+B)v = (1+\lambda) v$.

share|improve this answer

Suppose that $AB-BA=A$.

If $\det A\ne0$, then $A$ is invertible. So we get $$ I=A^{-1}A=A^{-1}(AB-BA)=B-A^{-1}BA. $$ But this equality is impossible: taking trace on both sides, we get $$ n=\text{Tr}(I)=\text{Tr}(B-A^{-1}BA)=\text{Tr}(B)-\text{Tr}(A^{-1}BA)=\text{Tr}(B)-\text{Tr}(B)=0. $$ We get a contradiction, which shows that $A$ is singular, i.e. $\det A=0$.

share|improve this answer
Thanks a lot. it is very clear now –  Christine Mar 27 '12 at 19:53

Hint #1: Assume that $x_1$ is an eigenvector of $B$ belonging to the eigenvalue $\lambda$. Show that $x_2=Ax_1$ is either an eigenvector of $B$ belonging to the eigenvalue $\lambda-1$, or $x_2=0$. Look up ladder-operator.

Hint #2: Replace $x_1$ with $x_2$ in the former case, and study $x_3=Ax_2$. Repeat. Why must we eventually find a non-zero vector $x_k$ ($k$ some natural number) with the property that $Ax_k=0$?

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.