1
$\begingroup$

If $\displaystyle A$ is a $ \displaystyle 4 \times 4 $-strictly upper triangular matrix, how do you show that $\displaystyle A$ is nilpotent? Would it be sufficient to write out an example of a $ \displaystyle 4 \times 4 $-strictly upper triangular matrix and multiply by itself till I reach $\displaystyle 0$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That is not sufficient but it can give you an idea for why it is true and how you can prove it. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Williams Feb 12 '15 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ If $a,b$ are nilponent of degrees $m,n$ then $(a+b)^{m+n}=0$, i.e. $a+b$ is nilpotent. Decompose your matrix as a sum of matrices that only have one non-zero element in the strict upper triangle. Each is nilpotent of degree at most $4$. $\endgroup$ – Tom Feb 12 '15 at 14:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tom This is false. Take, for instance, $a = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$ and $b = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right]$, which are both nilpotent of degree 2, but $a + b = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right]$ which is not nilpotent as it squares to the identity. If $ab = ba$ and $a,b$ are nilpotent, then $a+b$ is nilpotent. $\endgroup$ – walkar Feb 12 '15 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ That would be OK if the entries of the matrix were "unknowns", ad it would actually work. So if you can prove that $A^{4} = [0]$ for $A = \left(\begin{array}{clcr} 0 & x_{12}&x_{13}&x_{14}\\0&0& x_{23}&x_{24}\\0&0&0& x_{34}\\0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right)$ you have a valid proof. It is a bit messy to write out though. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Robinson Feb 12 '15 at 15:06
2
$\begingroup$

define the symbols: $$ d^{ij}_k:\{1,\dots,n\}^3 \to \{0,1\} $$ by the rule $$ d^{ij}_k=\begin{cases} 1& \text{if $j-i \ge k$},\\ 0& \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} $$ clearly an $n \times n$ upper triangular matrix may be written as $[a_{ij}d_0^{ij}]$ and a strictly upper triangular matrix may be written as $U=[u^{ij}d_1^{ij}]$

you may verify that: $$ d^{ij}_a d^{jk}_b= d^{ik}_{a+b} \tag{1} $$ now $$ U^2_{ik} = \sum_{j=1}^n u_{ij}d_1^{ij}u_{jk}d_1^{jk} \\ = d^{ik}_2 \sum_{j=1}^n u_{ij}u_{jk} $$ (applying (1) )

it follows that the $n^{th}$ power of $U$ is a matrix of the form $[d_n^{ij}x_{ij}]$, in which all entries are zero

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

You can prove by induction that a strictly upper triangular $n \times n$ matrix $A$ satisfies $A^{n} = [0]$ by showing that it left multiplies each memeber of the standard basis of column vectors $e_{i}$ (with $1$ in position $i$ and $0$ elsewhere) to $0$. It is clear that $Ae_{1}$ is the zero vector, and if $n >1,$ you can assume by induction that $A^{n-1}e_{j}$ is the zero vector for $2 \leq j \leq n$ ( just consider the way $A$ acts on the span of $e_{2},\ldots,e_{n}$ - it just acts like a strictly upper triangular $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ matrix on that space which is why you can use induction. Hence $A^{n}$ sends each basis vector to zero, so is the zero linear transformation.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

You can easily see that for any strictly upper triangular matrix the diagonal elements of $A^n$ are all $0$ for any $n\ge 1$. And, since a matrix $A$ is nilpotent iff tr$(A^n)=0\quad \forall n>0$ you have the statement.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Though the asker may have to prove trace 0 implies nilpotent, but that isn't so bad. Especially if you have a lot of the characterizations of trace and determinant using eigenvalues. $\endgroup$ – walkar Feb 12 '15 at 14:56
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The last statement of this answer is not necessarily true over fields of prime characteristic, whereas the statement about $4 \times 4$ strictly upper triangular matrices being nilpotent works over any field. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Robinson Feb 12 '15 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Geoff: Yes, good point! I was thinking only to fields of caracteristic $0$. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Novati Feb 12 '15 at 15:43
1
$\begingroup$

Remember that the entries on the first minor diagonal are $$(A^2)_{k,k+1}=\sum_{i=1}^n A_{k,i}A_{i,k+1}.$$ Because $A$ is strictly upper triangular for $i\le k$ you have $A_{k,i}=0$, and for $i>k$ you have $A_{i,k+1}=0$. So when squaring your matrix, you have zeros on the first minor diagonal.

If you square the result again, you can replace all "$+1$"s above by "$+2$" and see that now $(A^2)_{k,i}=0$ for $i\le k+1$, because the first minor diagonal has zeros too, and that $(A^2)_{i,k+2}=0$ for $i\ge k+1$. So now you have two minor diagonals with zeros.

Continuing the process, you end up with a 0-matrix.


More visually speaking, assume that you have $k$ minor diagonals with zeros and square that matrix. To get the $(i,j)$-th entry of the squared matrix, you multiple the $i$-th row with the $j$-th column using the scalar product. The $i$-th row has zeros as its first $i+k$ elements, while the $j$-th column has zeros as its last $n-j+k+1$ elements. So when $$n-j+k+1+i+k\ge n\Leftrightarrow j\le i+2k+1$$ they overlap and you get 0 in that spot, giving you even $2k+1$ minor diagonals full of zeros.

$\endgroup$

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.