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.

Prove or disprove:

if $A^2 \in M_{3}(\mathbb{R})$ is diagonalizable then so is $A$.

I'm pretty confident this is not true, but I've tried and tried to find a counter example without success. If someone contradicts this, I'd appreciate if you can outline your thought process when constructing the matrix $A$.

Also, another question in the same batch, asks:

Let $p(t)=t(t-0.25)(t-1)$ be the characteristic polynomial of $A^2$, is $A$ diagonalizable?

I'm thinking this is suppose to answer the previous question, assuming the answer here is false.

Here I know $A^2$ is diagonalizable, but I haven't made any substantial progress other than that.
I know I can go from the eigenvalues of $A$ to the eigenvalues of $A^k$, but not the other way around.

share|improve this question
    
Daniel, I have changed the notation to $M_{3}(\mathbb{R})$ which is the standard notation for set of all $3 \times 3$ real matrices. I hope that isn't a problem. If it is, then please rollback. –  user9413 Jul 6 '11 at 15:41
    
@Chandru, not at all, thank you. –  daniel.jackson Jul 6 '11 at 16:00
    
This is not true for matrices with a nilpotent Jordan component. However, if $A$ is non-singular, and we switch the field to complex numbers, then it is true. A slightly more general case (some power known to be diagonalizable) of this was recently discussed in fora.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=71107 –  Jyrki Lahtonen Jul 6 '11 at 16:10
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Try $A=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&1 \\ 0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0\end{pmatrix}$. The idea is that the null matrix is diagonalizable, but there exist matrices which satisfy $A^2=0$ and $A$ is not diagonalizable.

For the second question, note that the eigenvalues of $A^2$ are distinct, and therefore the eigenvalues of $A$ are distinct, which implies that $A$ is diagonalizable.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The answer to the second problem is yes. In general, the (in general complex) eigenvalues of $A^2$ are the squares of the eigenvalues of $A$. In this case $A^2$ has the eigenvalues $0$, $\frac{1}{4}$, and $1$. Therefore $0$ is an eigenvalue of $A$, either $\frac{1}{2}$ or $-\frac{1}{2}$ is an eigenvalue of $A$, and either $1$ or $-1$ is an eigenvalue of $A$. This means that $A$ has $3$ distinct real eigenvalues, which implies it is diagonalizable. The key is that the eigenvalues of $A^2$ are distinct and nonnegative, which implies that the eigenvalues of $A$ are distinct and real.

Edit: I accidentally overlapped somewhat with Beni Bogosel's earlier answer. (More was added after I started writing.)

share|improve this answer
    
So if $A^2$ had a negative eigenvalue, say $-1$, the same argument would not work? Because then it's possible that $A$ characteristic polynomial has $i$ as one of its roots, which is not an eigenvalue of $A$. –  daniel.jackson Jul 6 '11 at 16:04
    
@daniel.jackson: Yes, except you can strengthen your statements. If $A^2$ has a negative eigenvalue, then $A$ necessarily has a nonreal eigenvalue, which implies it is not diagonalizable in $M_n(\mathbb R)$. –  Jonas Meyer Jul 6 '11 at 16:07
    
Why must it have a nonreal eigenvalue? –  daniel.jackson Jul 6 '11 at 16:15
    
It follows from the fact mentioned above (of which I have not provided a proof) that the eigenvalues of $A^2$ are precisely the squares of the eigenvalues of $A$, while squares of real numbers are nonnegative real numbers. –  Jonas Meyer Jul 6 '11 at 16:21
    
I see. Could you be so kind to provide a proof (a general idea will be fine too)? –  daniel.jackson Jul 6 '11 at 16:26
show 2 more comments

Try $A=\begin{pmatrix} 0&-1&0 \\ 1&0&0 \\ 0&0&1\end{pmatrix}$.
I found it by considering the complex matrix $\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0 \\ 0&i&0 \\ 0&0&-i\end{pmatrix}$ and finding its characteristic polynomial, then using rational canonical form over $\mathbb{R}$.

share|improve this answer
    
The idea here is that over $\mathbb{C}$, being diagonalizable is equivalent to having distinct eigenvalues. So, over $\mathbb{C}$, your question is true: $A^2$ diagonalizable implies $A$ diagonalizable. So to find a counterexample, you need a diagonal matrix over $\mathbb{C}$ whose eigenvalues are not all real, but whose squares are all real. –  user641 Jul 6 '11 at 15:54
2  
uh? having distinct eigenvalues is sufficient but not necessary for being diagonalizable –  leonbloy Jul 6 '11 at 15:56
1  
Ah, yes, sorry, I meant distinct roots in its minimal polynomial. –  user641 Jul 6 '11 at 15:57
    
No, $A^2$ diagonalizable does not imply $A$ diagonalizable. It doesn't matter what field this is over. See Beni Bogosel's answer. –  Robert Israel Jul 6 '11 at 16:48
    
I have been working with invertible matrices the whole time!! –  user641 Jul 6 '11 at 17:00
add comment

To the second question: yes. If all eigenvalues of $A^2$ are pairwise distinct, then so are the eigenvalues of $A$, because if $Av=\lambda v$ then $A^2 v = \lambda ^2 v$, so $\ker(A-\lambda I) \subset \ker(A^2 - \lambda^2 I)$.

A matrix with pairwise distinct eigenvalues is diagonalizable. That's a simple and well known theorem.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.