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.

I think I have heard that the following is true before, but I don't know how to prove it:

Let $A$ be a matrix with real entries. Then the minimal polynomial of $A$ over $\mathbb{C}$ is the same as the minimal polynomial of $A$ over $\mathbb{R}$.

Is this true? Would anyone be willing to provide a proof?


Attempt at a proof:

Let M(t) be the minimal polynomial over the reals, and P(t) over the complex numbers. We can look at M as a polynomial over C, in which case it will fulfill M(A)=0, and therefore P(t) divides it. In addition, we can look at P(t) as the sum of two polynomials: R(t)+iK(t). Plugging A we get that R(A)+iK(A)=P(A)=0, but this forces both R(A)=0 and K(A)=0. Looking at both K and R as real polynomials, we get that M(t) divides them both, and therefore divides R+iK=P.

The first coefficient of M and P equals 1 (what is the term for this type of polynomial in English?), and they divide each other, therefore M=P.

Does this look to be correct?

share|improve this question
    
There's the saying, "Look before you leap". I think I've managed to prove this. Please confirm if my answer is correct. –  iroiroaru Sep 21 '11 at 18:43
    
I think you already posted before under a different account (the "above" instead of "over"); I also remember your user name. Have you considered registering, so that all your activity is under the same user name? –  Arturo Magidin Sep 21 '11 at 18:46
1  
It is impossible for us to confirm if your answer is correct if all you do is provide the question. If you want us to "confirm if [your] answer is correct", why not post your proof ? –  Arturo Magidin Sep 21 '11 at 18:49
    
I am in the process of writing it! –  iroiroaru Sep 21 '11 at 18:51
    
Hi Arturo, yes, I posted here twice before. Should I register? As this site allows me to post questions without registering, I figured it wouldn't be necessary. e- I'm done writing my proof. –  iroiroaru Sep 21 '11 at 18:53

4 Answers 4

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Written before/while the OP was adding his/her own proof, which is essentially the same as what follows.

Let $\mu_{\mathbb{R}}(x)$ be the minimal polynomial of $A$ over $\mathbb{R}$, and let $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}(x)$ be the minimal polynomial of $A$ over $\mathbb{C}$.

Since $\mu_{\mathbb{R}}(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ and $\mu_{\mathbb{R}}(A) = \mathbf{0}$, then it follows by the definition of minimal polynomial that $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}(x)$ divides $\mu_{\mathbb{R}}(x)$.

I claim that $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}[x]$ has real coefficients. Indeed, write $$\mu_{\mathbb{C}}(x) = x^m + (a_{m-1}+ib_{m-1})x^{m-1}+\cdots + (a_0+ib_0),$$ with $a_j,b_j\in\mathbb{R}$. Since $A$ is a real matrix, all entries of $A^j$ are real, so $$\mu_{\mathbb{C}}(A) = (A^m + a_{m-1}A^{m-1}+\cdots + a_0I) + i(b_{m-1}A^{m-1}+\cdots + b_0I).$$ In particular, $$b_{m-1}A^{m-1}+\cdots + b_0I = \mathbf{0}.$$ But since $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}(x)$ is the minimal polynomial of $A$ over $\mathbb{C}$, no polynomial of smaller digree can annihilate $A$, so $b_{m-1}=\cdots=b_0 = 0$. Thus, all coefficients of $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}(x)$ are real numbers.

Thus, $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}(x)\in\mathbb{R}[x]$, so by the definition of minimal polynomial, it follows that $\mu_{\mathbb{R}}(x)$ divides $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}(x)$ in $\mathbb{R}[x]$, and hence in $\mathbb{C}[x]$. Since both polynomials are monic and they are associates, they are equal. QED


So, yes, your argument is correct.

share|improve this answer

Another way of proving this fact may be observing that ''you do not go out the field while using Gaussian elimination''. More precisely:

Proposition. Let $K \subseteq F$ be a field extension let $v_1, \dots, v_r \in K^n$. If $v_1, \dots, v_r$ are linearly dependent over $F$, then they are linearly dependent over $K$.

Proof. We'll prove the contrapositive of the statement. Suppose that the $v_i$'s are linearly independent over $K$. Let $\lambda_i \in F$ such that $\sum_i \lambda_i v_i = 0$. We can find $e_j \in F$ linearly independent over $K$ such that $\lambda_i = \sum_j \alpha_{ij} e_j$, with $\alpha_{ij} \in K$. Now from $\sum_{i,j} e_j \alpha_{ij} v_i = 0$ we deduce that $\sum_i \alpha_{ij} v_i = 0$, for every $j$. From the independence of $v_i$'s over $K$, we have $\alpha_{ij} = 0$, so $\lambda_i = 0$. $\square$

Now consider a field extension $K \subseteq F$ and a matrix $A \in M_n(K)$. Let $\mu_K$ and $\mu_F$ the minimal polynomials of $A$ over $K$ and $F$, respectively. Considering $I, A, A^2, \dots, A^r$ in the vector space $M_n(K)$, from the proposition you have $\deg \mu_K \leq \deg \mu_F$. On the other hand it is clear that $\mu_F$ divides $\mu_K$. So $\mu_F = \mu_K$.

share|improve this answer

This looks correct.

Another way to see it is that you can find the minimal polynomial of the matrix by computing the invariant factors of the matrix $A-XId$ over $\mathbb{R}$. Since the same process (with same operations) may be done over $\mathbb{C}$, their minimal polynomial is the same.

sorry, i don't know the english word for the "invariant factors", i mean the process that using only row and columns operations, the matrix $A-XId$ may be uniquely writtten as some zero and a sequence of polynomial in the diagonal in which any polynomial divides the next one, and where the first is the minimal polynomial $A$ and the last the characteristic polynomial of $A$.

share|improve this answer
    
Don't apologise, I'm having trouble with English as well! Since Arturo posted what seems like a more straightforward proof (well, it's the one I thought of...), I've accepted his answer, but thank you for your input and I will consider your idea. –  iroiroaru Sep 21 '11 at 19:07

As Andrea explained, the statement in the question results immediately from the following one.

Let $K$ be a subfield of a field $L$, let $A$ be an $m$ by $n$ matrix with coefficients in $K$, and assume that the equation $Ax=0$ has a nonzero solution in $L^n$. Then it has a nonzero solution in $K^n$.

But this is obvious, because the algorithm giving such a solution (or its absence) depends only on the field generated by the coefficients of $A$.

share|improve this answer

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.