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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm trying to show:

Let $C(t)=C_rt^r+C_{r-1}t^{r-1}+\cdots+C_1t^1+C_0\in \mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb{F}[t])$ a polynomial with coefficients $C_{i}$ in $\mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb{F})$. Show that, exists a matrix polynomial $Q(t)$ such that: $$C(t)=Q(t)(tI_n-A)+C(A)$$ That means, the remainder of the division 'to the right' of $C(t)$ by $(tI_n-A)$ is the matrix: $$C(A)=C_rA^r+C_{r-1}A^{r-1}+\cdots+C_1A^1+C_0$$

Actually, I'm a little confused with this exercise.

It says nothing about $(tI_n-A)$.

Thanks for your help.

share|cite|improve this question
Compute $C(t)-C(A)$ using identities like $t^kI-A^k=(tI-A)\ldots$. – Davide Giraudo Apr 8 '12 at 8:50
up vote 1 down vote accepted

You can do this by thinking of matrices with polynomials as entries as polynomials with matrices as coefficients (your expresion for $C(t)$ already suggests this point of view), by taking the coefficient of $t^i$ to be the matrix of the coefficients of $t^i$ of your polynomial entries. Be careful, those are polynomials with non-commutative coefficients, and not everything that works for commutative polynomials works for them, notably one cannot just evaluate them (in a matrix); this means your expression $C(A)$ does not have any sense a priori. For now I'll call it $R$ (for remainder) instead and just assume it to be some constant matrix; I'll show that it is given by your expression later. Euclidean right-division by a monic polynomial such as $I_nt-A$ turns out to work as usual (here monic means the leading coefficient is the identity matrix $I_n$). (Left-division works too, but the answers may differ.)

Here's how it works in detail. Since $R$ is a constant (no $t$ is present), the leading term $C_rt^r$ can only come (where I'm assuming $r>0$) from the product $Q(t)(I_nt-A)$; this forces $Q(t)$ to have leading term $C_rt^{r-1}$. Denoting by $Q_1(t)$ the remaining terms of $Q(t)$ it is easy to see they have to satisfy $$ C(t)-C_rt^r+C_rAt^{r-1}=Q_1(t)(I_nt-A)+R $$ (note that I rewrote $C_rt^{r-1}A$ as $C_rAt^{r-1}$; this commutation of powers of $t$ with constant matrices is obvious when interpreting these as matrices with polynomial entries).

The left hand side is a polynomial of degree at most $r-1$, so we may assume by induction on $r$ that we know how to handle the Euclidean division for it. The base case of the induction which I skipped over is easy: if the left hand side $C(t)$ is constant, the obviously $Q(t)=0$ and $R=C(t)$ (which we may write as $C(A)$ if we like since $C(t)$ does not contain $t$ anyway). So if we put $C_1(t)=C(t)-C_rt^r+C_rAt^{r-1}$ and assume by induction that there are unique $Q_1(t)$ and constant $R$ such that $C_1(t)=Q_1(t)(I_nt-A)+R$, then we have shown that there also exists a unique pair for $C(t)$, namely $Q(t)=C_rt^{r-1}+Q_1(t)$ and the same $R$ as for $C_1(t)$.

All that remains is showing that $R=C(A)$ as given by the expression in the question (which is called the right-evaluation of $C(t)$ at $A$). We've seen that this is trivially true if $C(t)$ is constant, so we may assume it holds for $C_1(t)$, in other words $C_1(t)=Q_1(t)(I_nt-A)+C_1(A)$. Now $C_1(t)$ was obtained from $C(t)$ by removing the leading term $C_rt^r$ and adding the term $C_rAt^{r-1}$ in its place; it is immediate that the contribution of those two terms to the value of $C(A)$ is the same, and therefore $C(A)=C_1(A)$. Thus one finds $R=C(A)$ as promised.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much! – Hiperion Apr 8 '12 at 15:58

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.