Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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 found this theorem on Prasolov's Problems and Theorems in Linear Algebra:

Let V be a $\mathbb{C}$-vector space and $A,B \in \mathcal{L}(V) $such that $ rank([A,B])\leq 1$ (Where $[\cdot,\cdot]:\mathcal{L}(V)\times \mathcal{L}(V)\to \mathcal{L}(V)$ is the commutator, defined as $[A,B]\ := AB - BA$). Then $A$ and $B$ have a common eigenvector.

He gives this proof:

The proof will be carried out by induction on $n=dim(V)$. He states that we can assume that $ker(A)\neq \{0\}$, otherwise we can replace $ A$ by $ A - \lambda I$; doubt one: why can we assume that? For $n=1$ it's clear that the property holds, because $ V = span(v) $ for some $v$. Supposing that holds for some $n\in \mathbb{N}$, he divides in to cases:

1. $ker(A)\subseteq ker(C)$; and

2. $ker(A)\not\subset ker(C)$.

Doubt two: the cases 1 and 2 come from (or is equivalent to) the division or $rank([A,B])= 1$ or $rank([A,B])=0$?

After this division he continues for case one: $B(ker(A))\subseteq ker(A)$, since if $ A(x) = 0 $, then $[A,B](x) = 0$ and $AB(x) = BA(x) + [A,B](x) = 0 $. Now, the doubt three is concerning the following step in witch is considered the restriction $B'$ of $B$ to $ker(A)$ and a selection of an eigenvector $v\in ker(A)$ of $B$ and the statment that $v$ is also a eigenvector of $A$. This proves the case 1.

Now, if $ker(A)\not\subset ker(C)$ then $A(x) = 0$ and $[A,B](x)\neq 0$ for some $x\in V$. Since $rank([A,B]) = 1 $ then $ Im([A,B]) = span(v)$, for some $v\in V$, where $v=[A,B](x)$, so that $y = AB(x) - BA(x) = AB(x) \in Im(A)$. It follows that $B(Im(A))\subseteq Im(A)$. Now, comes doubt four, that is similar to three: he takes the restrictions $ A',B'$ of $A,B$ to $Im(A)$ and the states that $rank([A',B'])\leq 1$ and therefor by the inductive hypothesis the operators $A'$ and $B'$ have a common eigenvector. And this proves the case 2, concluding the entire proof. I didn't understand why he can take these restrictions and conclude that they have the same eigenvector.

share|cite|improve this question
Fëanor, if I understood your flag correctly, you were asking to have the edit you made to your question undone. Please let me know if you intended something else. – Zev Chonoles Apr 19 '12 at 16:26
@ZevChonoles It's all. Thanks. – Paulo Henrique Apr 19 '12 at 18:59
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Doubt 1: since $\mathbb{C}$ is algebraically closed, $A$ possesses an eigenvalue $\lambda$ and thus the kernel of $A-\lambda I$ is not $0$. Now if $v$ is a common eigenvector of $A-\lambda I$ and $B$, then $\mu v=(A-\lambda I)v=Av-\lambda v$, hence $v$ is a common eigenvector of $A$ and $B$.

Doubt 2: My guess is no. But why bother?

Doubt 3: here the induction hypothesis can be applied, because it was shown that $B$ is a linear map of $\mathrm{ker}(A)$ into itself, and $\mathrm{ker}(A)$ has a dimension smaller than $n$ (otherwise $A=0$ in which case there is nothing to prove). Moreover the rank of the commutator of $A|_{\mathrm{ker}(A)}=0$ and $B^\prime$ is $0$.

Doubt 4: the restrictions $A^\prime$ and $B^\prime$ are linear maps of $\mathrm{Im}(A)$ into $\mathrm{Im}(A)$, because for $A$ this is trivial and for $B$ this has been shown. The dimension of $\mathrm{Im}(A)$ is smaller than $n$ because by assumption $\mathrm{ker}(A)\neq 0$. Hence again the induction hypothesis can be invoked to conclude that a common eigenvector exists.

share|cite|improve this answer
if the division that I proposed is not relevant, why the other division is chosen? And how could I explain its use? – Paulo Henrique Apr 17 '12 at 18:59
The reason for distinguishing the two cases is that the induction hypothesis comes in in two different ways: once via restriction to the kernel, the other time via restriction to the image. One cannot use the kernel of $A$ in the second case, nor can one use the image of $A$ in the first case. – Hagen Knaf Apr 17 '12 at 19:11

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.