# A bad Cayley–Hamilton theorem proof [duplicate]

Given $A\in M_{n \times n}(\mathbb{F})$ and $p_{A}(x)=\det(xI-A)$ why saying that $\det(AI-A)=0$ is not valid?

## marked as duplicate by user1551 linear-algebra StackExchange.ready(function() { if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return; $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() { var$hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');$hover.hover( function() { $hover.showInfoMessage('', { messageElement:$msg.clone().show(), transient: false, position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 }, dismissable: false, relativeToBody: true }); }, function() { StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages(); } ); }); }); Sep 9 '15 at 5:16

It's not valid because in the expression $xI$, the hidden operation is scalar multiplication, i.e., multiplication of the identity matrix by the constant real value $x$. In the expression $AI$, the hidden operation is matrix multiply, which is in general different from scalar multiply.
There's a real subtlety here: the polynomial $p_A(x)$ is, as defined by the equation, a polynomial function of a single real variable. The CH theorem says that if you, after having computed the coefficients of that polynomial, now plug in the matrix $A$ for the variable $x$, and treat powers of $x$ as matrix powers of $A$, you get the zero matrix. Doing that plugging=in=a=matrix=where=a=real=number=should=be is a very weird operation, and so the result is quite surprising.
It's not valid because Cayley Hamilton says that $p_A(A)=0$ where 0 is the zero matrix, but in your argument you have a zero scalar.