Assume that $P(x)=a_nx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\dots+a_1x+a_0$ is a polynomial such that the coefficients are complex numbers and $A \in M_n(\mathbb C)$. We can define $P$ on $A$ like this :
For example if $P(x)=x^2+x+2$ then $P(A)=A^2+A+2I$ .

Assume that $\gamma$ is an eigenvalue of $P(A)$.
We want to show that there exists $\lambda_i$ such that $\lambda_i$ is an eigenvalue of $A$ and $P(\lambda_i)=\gamma$.
This is what our teacher wrote ( And he mentioned that he was writing a brief version of it so he may have emitted some parts ) :

$\implies P(A)-\gamma I_n=a_m(A-\lambda_1 I_n)(A-\lambda_2 I_n)\dots(A-\lambda_m I_n)$
We know that $P(A)-\gamma I_n$ is not invertible. So, there exists $\lambda_i$ such that $A-\lambda_i I_n$ is not invertible. So, $\lambda_i$ is an eigenvalue of $A$.
Thus we have :
$P(\lambda_i)-\gamma=0 \implies P(\lambda_i)=\gamma$

My problem :

  1. How on earth do we know that $P(x)-\gamma=a_m(x-\lambda_1)(x-\lambda_2)\dots(x-\lambda_m)$ ?
    I know that $P(x)$ has eigenvalues of $A$ as roots ( which are in the form of $\lambda_i$'s ). But why $P(x)-\gamma$ has them as roots too? ( Please don't just mention the fundamental theorem of linear algebra. Explain it more because i'm new to linear-algebra. )

  2. What is $a_m$? Why is the last factor $A-\lambda_m I_n$ not $A-\lambda_n I_n$?

  3. How does this proof guarantee that $P(A)$ has no other eigenvalues? ( Someone may say that there is another eigenvalue which doesn't come from a $\lambda_i$ )

Note : I don't want the proof cause i have it. I want to understand it.

Thanks in advance.

  1. You make a confusion : $P$ is any polynomial, not a cancelling polynomial of $A$. What your teacher says is that $P(X)-\lambda$ is a polynomial of degree $m$, so it has to have $m$ roots in $\mathbb C$, which he calls $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_m$.

  2. $a_m$ is the leading coefficient of $P(X)-\lambda$, which is, if $P$ is not a constant, the leading coefficient of $P$.

  3. The only thing this demonstration shows is that if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $P(A)$, then there exists an eigenvalue $\mu$ of $A$ such that $\lambda=P(\mu)$. You may be confused by the similarity of the notations $\lambda$ and $\lambda_i$.

  • $\begingroup$ So, the way of proof is this : Theorem said eigenvalues of $P(A)$ =$\{P(\lambda):\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A\}$ ... we proved this part ...we showed that $P(\lambda) I_n - P(A)$ is not invertible. What i wrote as his proof in this question, shows that if we have an eigenvalue of $P(A)$ like $\gamma$, there exists an eigenvalue of $A$ like $\lambda_i$ such that $\gamma=P(\lambda_i)$ ... and thus, the theorem is proved ... am i right ? $\endgroup$ – Arman Malekzadeh Oct 27 '16 at 11:21

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.