Sign up ×
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.

Question: Does there exist $A \in M_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$ such that every element of $M_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$ can be represented as a linear combination of powers of $A$ with integer coefficients? In other words,

$$\exists A \in M_{2}(\mathbb{Z}) \, \,s.t. M_{2}(\mathbb{Z})=\left.\left\{\sum_{i}a_{i}A^{i} \;\right| \; a_{i} \in \mathbb{Z}, a_j=0\text{ for almost all }j\right\}$$

Motivation: I want to construct a surjective ring homomorphism $\varphi: \mathbb{Z}\left[x\right] \rightarrow M_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$ by letting $\varphi: \displaystyle \sum_{i}a_{i}x^{i} \mapsto \sum_{i}a_{i}A^{i}$. The above property is sufficient for surjectivity.

What I've tried: It's sufficient to find four linear combinations that sum to $\left\{ \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right], \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right], \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right], \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right] \right\}$. I haven't been able to find a magic $A$ that does this. For example, powers of $\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{array} \right]$ generate Fibonacci numbers, except that off diagonal elements are the same, so this will never work.

This is not homework. I have a feeling it may be impossible, but I'm not sure why. If for some reason it is impossible over $\mathbb{Z}$, I would be interested to know if it's possible over $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ for a prime $p$. Thanks for any help.

share|cite|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

You cannot construct a surjective morphism $\mathbb{Z}[x] \to \mathcal{M}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ because the former is commutative and the latter is not. No need to appeal to Cayley-Hamilton. This is true when $\mathbb{Z}$ is replaced by any commutative ring.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is also a nice answer, simpler and a little more general. I'd accept both if I could. – Jackson Jun 9 '12 at 20:58
D'oh! Of course. – Arturo Magidin Jun 9 '12 at 21:01
@ArturoMagidin haha yea I facepalmed as soon as I read his answer. – Jackson Jun 9 '12 at 21:12
Arturo's answer does show more, though: it shows that the image of a morphism $F[x] \to \mathcal{M}_n(F)$ has dimension at most $n$ (working over a field for simplicity). It is interesting to ask whether there exists a commutative subalgebra of $\mathcal{M}_n(F)$ of dimension more than $n$, and in fact one can find examples of dimension quadratic in $n$: see . – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 9 '12 at 22:10

No, you cannot do it over (either over $\mathbb{Z}$ or over $\mathbb{Z}_p$).

Note that any $n\times n$ matrix satisfies its own characteristic polynomial by the Cayley-Hamilton Theorem. In the case of a $2\times 2$ matrix, the characteristic polynomial is just $x^2 - \mathrm{trace}(A)x + \det(A)$, so if $A$ has integer coefficients, then the polynomial has integer coefficients.

That means that for any $A\in M_2(\mathbb{Z})$, there exist integers $t$ and $d$ such that $$A^2 = tA + dI_2.$$

Thus, any polynomial expression in $A$ can be simplified, by applying the identity above, to an expression of the form $c_0I_2 + c_1A$.

Thus, if $$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a&b\\c&d\end{array}\right),$$ then every element of your set is of the form $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} r+sa & sb\\ sc & r+sd \end{array}\right),\qquad r,s\in\mathbb{Z}.$$

Now let $(x,y)$ be any element of $\mathbb{Z}^2$ that is not in the subgroup generated by $(b,c)$. Then the matrix $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & x\\ y & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ cannot be obtained as a polynomial expression in $A$, because every matrix that is a polynomial expression of $A$ will have that the vector made up of the $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ entries of the matrix lies in the subgroup generated by $(b,c)$.

The same argument works over $\mathbb{Z}_p$, except that now you want to take $(x,y)$ a vector not in the linear span of $(b,c)$ in the vector space $\mathbb{Z}_p^2$ over $\mathbb{Z}_p$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Very nice answer, thank you! – Jackson Jun 9 '12 at 20:39

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.