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

Does anyone know a proof from the first principles that a nilpotent matrix has zero trace. No eigenvalues, no characteristic polynomials, just definition and basic facts about bases and matrices.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

I assume you want the trace of a matrix $A\in M_n(F)$ to be defined as the sum of the diagonal elements and that you take the coefficients in a (commutative) field $F$. Here is an approach using only basic facts about bases and matrices.

1) Recall the trace is commutative $\mathrm{tr}(AB)=\mathrm{tr}(BA)$, as shown by the usual computations. In particular the trace is invariant under similarity (change of basis): $\mathrm{tr}(PAP^{-1})=\mathrm{tr} A$ for every $P$ invertible in $M_n(F)$.

2) If $A$ is nilpotent with degree $k$ (i.e. $A^k=0$ but $A^{k-1}\neq 0$), we have the following flag $$ \{0\}\subseteq \ker A\subseteq \ker A^2\subseteq \ldots\subseteq \ker A^k=F^n $$ where dimensions are strictly increasing. Starting with a basis of $\ker A$, we can complete it into a basis of $\ker A^2$ and so on until we get a basis of $F^n$. If $P$ denotes the corresponding change of basis matrix, then $PAP^{-1}$ is strictly upper-triangular as $A(\ker A^j)\subseteq \ker A^{j-1}$. In particular, the diagonal of $PAP^{-1}$ is zero whence $\mathrm{tr}(PAP^{-1})=0$.

share|cite|improve this answer
The trace is not commutative. Even in a commutative field. – André Caldas Dec 24 '13 at 19:27
@AndréCaldas You are right. It is not commutative, but it is cyclic. I.e., Tr$(ABC)=$Tr$(CAB)$=Tr$(BCA)$, so I believe that is all he needs. – Daniel Montealegre Dec 24 '13 at 19:33
@julien: I do not have to prove. You have! Show that $\mathrm{tr}(ABC) = \mathrm{tr}(BAC)$. Cheers. – André Caldas Dec 24 '13 at 19:42
@JohnMoeller and julien: I prefer to say that it is invariant under xxxx type of permutations. The trace is not a binary operation, and therefore, I find it misleading to say it is commutative. What is associativity, for example? Now, notice that in case of group operations, for example, commutativity plus associativity gives that $abc = bac$. Is the trace associative? In what sense? But anyway... your solution is very nice!!! Cheers. :-) – André Caldas Dec 28 '13 at 11:53
@AndréCaldas Yeah, I agree this is sloppy terminology. It just happens I've heard it many times. But hey, I've edited...;-) – 1015 Dec 28 '13 at 14:44

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.