9
$\begingroup$

$A$ is a $n\times n$ matrix such that $ A^m = 0 $ for some positive integer $m$. Show that $A^n = 0$.

My attempt:
For $n > m$, it's obvious since matrix multiplication is associative.

For $n < m$, $A^n\times A^{m-n} = 0$; not sure what to do next. Also I know that $\det A = 0$.

$\endgroup$
19
$\begingroup$

If $A^m=0$, then the minimal polynomial of $A$ divides $x^m$. The minimal polynomial has degree at most $n$ by Cayley-Hamilton.


Here is an alternative approach that doesn't rely on knowing anything about minimal polynomials, or Cayley-Hamilton. Consider $A$ as a linear transformation on $K^n$ if $K$ is your base field. Let $M_1$ be the range of $A$, i.e., $M_1=A(K^n)=\{Av:v\in K^n\}$. For $j>1$ let $M_{j}=A(M_{j-1})$ be the image of $M_{j-1}$ under $A$. In other words, $M_j=A^j(K^n)$, and we can include $M_0=K^n$ for convenience. Note that each $M_j$ is a subspace and $M_j\subseteq M_{j-1}$ for all $j$.

We know that $A^m=0$, so $M_m=\{0\}$. If for some $j$, $M_j=M_{j-1}$, then $M_{j+1}=AM_{j}=AM_{j-1}=M_j$, so $M_{j-1}=M_j=M_{j+1}=M_{j+2}=\cdots$. It follows that $M_j$ must be $\{0\}$ in such cases. This implies that all of the containments are proper until you get to $\{0\}$, so there is an $m_0$ such that $\{0\}=M_{m_0}\subsetneq M_{m_0-1}\subsetneq\cdots\subsetneq M_2\subsetneq M_1\subsetneq K^n$. Since there are $m_0$ proper containments of subspaces and $K^n$ is $n$ dimensional, this implies that $m_0\leq n$. Since $M_{m_0}=\{0\}$ and $M_{m_0}$ is the range of $A^{m_0}$, it follows that $A^{m_0}=0$, and finally $A^n=A^{m_0}A^{n-m_0}=0$.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

From $A^m=0$ you learn that all eigenvalues of $A$ are zero. So the Jordan form of $A$ is strictly upper triangular, and it is an easy exercise to show that the $n^{\rm th}$ power of an upper triangular matrix with zero diagonal is zero.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ this matrix may not be diagonalizable. So to prove that its nth power is 0 i'm not quite sure how $\endgroup$ – Geralt of Rivia Feb 12 '12 at 7:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @imintomath: Nobody suggested diagonalizing. Have you seen Jordan form? $\endgroup$ – Jonas Meyer Feb 12 '12 at 7:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ o.o oh i haven't learn about this Jordan form yet, but now it's quite obvious that $ A^n = 0 $. Thank you all ~ $\endgroup$ – Geralt of Rivia Feb 12 '12 at 7:29
  • $\begingroup$ @martin..can you please elaborate why all the eigenvalues of A are zero? Although A is singular. $\endgroup$ – Ranveer Singh Feb 4 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ For any polynomial $p$, the eigenavlues of $p(A)$ are $p(\lambda)$ for $\lambda$ eigenvalue of $A$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Argerami Feb 4 at 16:46
2
$\begingroup$

Since this question is marked as duplicate from one that explicitly asks not to use the Cayley-Hamilton theorem I will not do that. Nor will I use Jordan normal forms (which require an algebraically closed field).

Let $m\in\Bbb N$ be minimal such that $A^m=0$; then by assumption there are (unless $m=0$, which implies $n=0$ and is boring) vectors$~v$ such that $A^{m-1}\neq0$; one needs to prove $m\leq n$. There are various ways to proceed, I'll mention three.

(1) Putting $v_i=A^{m-i}(v)$ for $0<i\leq m$, one has $v_i\in\ker(A^i)\setminus\ker(A^{i-1})$, which shows that the chain of subspaces $\{0\}=\ker(A^0)\subseteq\ker(A^1)\subseteq\ker(A^2)\subseteq\cdots$ is strictly increasing until reaching $\ker(A^m)=k^n$, and considering dimensions one gets $n\geq m$.

(2) Those vectors $v_1,\ldots,v_m$ are linearly independent, for otherwise, if one considers the first $k$ for which $v_1,\ldots,v_k$ are linearly dependent, then $k>1$ (since $v_1\neq0$ by construction), but applying $A$ to a dependency relation one gets a shorter one, contradicting minimality. From the independence one gets $m=\dim\langle v_1,\ldots,v_m\rangle\leq n$.

(3) Putting $V_i=\ker(A^i)$ for brevity (any $i\in\Bbb N$), each $V_{i+1}$ is (by definition) the inverse image under the linear map defined by $A$ of $V_i$. Then that linear map induces a map $V_{i+2}/V_{i+1}\to V_{i+1}/V_i$ that is injective (by the mentioned inverse image property). It follows that the sequence of natural numbers $(\dim(V_{i+1}/V_i))_{i\in\Bbb N}$ is weakly decreasing, so it cannot attain the value $0$ for any $i<m$. Then immediately $\dim(V_i)\geq i$ for all $i\leq m$, and in particular $n=\dim(V_m)\geq m$. [The main interest of this approach is that it gives additional and quite useful information beyond what was asked for.]

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.