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

Can anybody show how to prove or show where to find a proof of the following statement:

Given a matrix $$T = \begin{pmatrix} t_{11} & 0 & 0 & \dotsm & 0 & 0& \dotsm & 0& 0\\ t_{21} & t_{22} & 0 & \dotsm & 0 & 0& \dotsm & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & t_{32} & t_{33} & \dotsm & 0& 0& \dotsm & 0 & 0 \\ \vdots \\0 & 0 & 0 & \dotsm & t_{i,i-1} & t_{ii} & \dotsm &0&0 \\ \vdots \\0&0&0& \dotsm &0& 0 & \dotsm &t_{m,m-1}&t_{mm} \end{pmatrix}$$ where $0 \leqslant t_{ij} \leqslant 1$ ( for $ 1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant m , i \neq j), 0<t_{ii}<1$ (for $1\leqslant i \leqslant m$) and $\sum_{i=1}^m{t_{ij}} \leqslant 1$ for each $j$ Then \begin{equation} \label{trans_mat_geom} (I-T)^{-1} = \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}{T^k}. \end{equation} Thanks in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
One way of proceeding is to reduce to the case where $\mathbf T$ is either a scalar or a Jordan block, since any other matrix can be treated as a block diagonal matrix with scalar or Jordan blocks after a similarity transformation. The scalar case is familiar. The Jordan case requires a bit more work. – J. M. Dec 1 '11 at 11:26
Dear Pierre , Thank you too :) :). @ J.M I've already had Gantmacher's book! I'm going through it and I'm downloading the other book. I will let you know with the progress. Thank you so much. :) – Zizo Dec 1 '11 at 11:42
Dear Suso: I removed the "$\geqslant 0$". I hope it's ok. Please feel free to tell me if it's not. – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 1 '11 at 12:00
Sure Pierre. Thanks. I've reformatted the question I wish it make sense. Thanks. – Zizo Dec 1 '11 at 14:11
You have made drastic changes to your question. If $T$ is triangular and some $t_{ii}=1$, the series $\sum_k T^k$ simply diverges because $\sum_{k=0}^\infty (T^k)_{ii} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty t_{ii}^k = \sum_{k=0}^\infty 1=\infty$. – user1551 Dec 1 '11 at 15:04
up vote 1 down vote accepted

One way to prove the result is to note that (a) we can always find a matrix norm $\|\cdot\|$ such that $\|T\|$ is arbitrarily close to the spectral radius of $T$. So we may assume that $\|T\|<1$. (b) As $\|T\|<1$, the infinite series $\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}{T^k}$ converges.

For both (a) and (b), see sec. 5.6 (Matrix Norm) of Horn and Johnson's Matrix Analysis.

share|cite|improve this answer
How did you rule out the identity matrix? – GEdgar Dec 1 '11 at 14:40
The OP has modified his question significantly after I answered the question. He/she initially asked how to show that $\sum T^k=(I-T)^{-1}$ given that the spectral radius of $T$ is smaller than $1$. – user1551 Dec 1 '11 at 14:53
Thanks, I wasn't aware of my mistake! in fact $ 0 < t_{ii} < 1.$ I'm downloading the book you suggested. Thanks. – Zizo Dec 1 '11 at 15:48
I'm reading section 5.6 now. – Zizo Dec 1 '11 at 16:03

Try Gantmacher, Matrix Theory or Lancaster-Tismenetsky, The theory of matrices.

I don't have any of the references with me right now, so I'm relying on my memory. But, if I remember correctly, the point, in a nutshell, is: if $p(t) = (t-\lambda_1)^{\alpha_1} \dots (t-\lambda_r)^{\alpha_r}$ is the minimal polynomial of $A$, in order to compute $f(A)$, for some function $f$, you just need $f(\lambda_i), f'(\lambda_i) \dots , f^{(\alpha_i -1)}(\lambda_i)$ to be defined for all $i= 1, \dots , r$ (this is called the spectrum of $A$). Or, for what matter, in order of some identity concerning $A$ to hold, it must hold for the spectrum of $A$. So, in your case, you need (and it's enough that) the maximal eigenvalue of $A$ to be less than $1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

It suffices to check that the series converges.

We can assume that $S:=T-\lambda$ satisfies $S^{k+1}=0$ some $\lambda$ with $|\lambda| < 1$ and some $k > 0$. Then we have $$ T^n=(\lambda+S)^n=\sum_{j=0}^k\ \binom{n}{j}\ \lambda^{n-j}\ S^j, $$ and the convergence is clear.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.