8
$\begingroup$

Let $A\in M_n(\mathbb R)$ be such that, the minimal polynomial of $A$, has not any real root. Prove that there exist some $B\in M_n(\mathbb R)$ which: $B^2=-I_n$ and $AB=BA$.

Suppose that $p(x)=x^k+a_{k-1}x^{k-1}+...+a_1+a_0$ be the minimal polynomial of $A$. By the hypothesis, $a_0\neq 0$ and over ring $\mathbb R[x]$, the polynomial $p(x)$ has the following decomposition:

$$p(x)=(x^2+b_1x+b_2)^{d_1}(x^2+b_3x+b_4)^{d_2}...(x^2+b_mx+b_{m+1})^{ds}$$

With $b_j\in \mathbb R$ for $j=1,2,...,m+1$, and $d_1+d_2+...+d_s=k$.

If I prove that there exist $q(x),h(x)\in \mathbb R[x]$ such that:

$$(h(x))^2=p(x)q(x)-1$$

Then I am done by putting $B=h(A)$. But how can I prove that $q$ exists?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It might be easier to write $p(x)=\prod_i ((x+a_i)^2+b_i^2)^{d_i}$ to ensure that there is no real root. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews May 1 '15 at 22:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GregMartin If $h^2=pq-1$ then $pq=h^2+1$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel May 2 '15 at 0:02
  • $\begingroup$ Now define $B=h(A)$. then, since $p(A)=0$ and $h^2(x)=p(x)q(x)-1$, we should have: $B^2=-I_n$ and $AB=BA$ $\endgroup$ – hamid kamali May 2 '15 at 6:55
  • $\begingroup$ No idea how to proceed from your line of argument. If you merely want to prove the original problem statement, it's easy to obtain a proof using real Jordan form. $\endgroup$ – user1551 May 2 '15 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ It suffices to find two complementary real subspaces that are A invariant. Associate conjugate eigenvalues. $\endgroup$ – user91684 May 3 '15 at 9:42
4
$\begingroup$

First observation: by searching for a polynomial in$~A$ rather than just a matrix $B$ commuting with$~A$, you are demanding more then the question does, and thereby make the problem more difficult. One can arrange for $B$ to be a polynomial in$~A$, but it is easier if one does not have this restriction.

By the primary decomposition theorem, the space decomposes as a direct sum of the subspaces annihilated by the primary factors $(T^2+b_iT+c)^{d_i}$, and if one can find a proper linear operator $B_i$ on each subspace, they will combine to define $B$ on the whole space. This means one can restrict to the case where $p$ is a power of a single irreducible polynomial $q=x^2+bx+c$. One can further (non canonically) decompose the space as a direct sum of cyclic modules, each spanned as $\Bbb R[x]$-module by a single "cyclic" vector, which his annihilated by some power $(T^2+bT+c)^k$.

The case $k=1$ is easy: now the cyclic subspace is isomorphic as$~\Bbb R[x]$-module to $\Bbb R[x]/(q)$, which is isomorphic to$~\Bbb C$, so the action of multiplication by $\mathbf i$ under that correspondence will do as $B$. Concretely this is a polynomial of degree$~1$ in$~T$: completing the square $$ q = x^2+bx+c = (x+s)^2+d^2 \qquad\text{with $s=\frac b2$ and $d=\sqrt{c-s^2}$} $$ one has for $B=\frac{T+sI}d$ that $B^2+I=0$. (This would have worked without decomposing into cyclic modules: the space would still be a module over $\Bbb R[x]/(q)\cong\Bbb C$, and the same $B$ would work.)

Now consider general $k$. For a given cyclic vector $v$, one sees that $v, q[T]v,q^2[T]v,~\ldots,~q^{k-1}[T]v$, together with the images of all of these vectors by $T$, form an $\Bbb R$-basis of the space. In the subspace spanned by $w_i=q^i[T]v$ and $Tw_i$, choose another basis $w_i,w_i'=\frac{T+sI}dw_i$, and define $B$ to act by $Bw_i=w'_i$ and $Bw'_i=-w_i$; then clearly $B^2=-I$, and it is readily checked that $B$ commutes with$~T$.

This $B$ is not a polynomial in$~T$: the operator $\frac{T+sI}d$ acts differently on the vectors $w'_i$ than $B$ does. Indeed $b=\frac{X+s}d$ only satisfies $b^2\equiv1\pmod{q}$, while one needs this to hold modulo $q^k$. This can be remedied by a technique similar to Hensel lifting, but I'll leave this to figure out yourself.

$\endgroup$

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.