Suppose that $A,B\in M_n(\mathbb{C})$ such that $AB-BA=A $. Prove that $A$ is not invertible.

My work:

Suppose $A$ is invertible. Then $ABA^{-1}=I+B$ . So $B$ is similar to $I+B$ .Let $B$ have eigenvalues $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_n \in \mathbb{C}$. So $B$ has basis such that $B$ is upper triangular with respect to it and has $c_1,\ldots,c_n$ as diagonal entries . It is easy to see that $I+B$ is upper-triangular with respect to this basis and has entries $1+c_1,\ldots, 1+c_n$ .

Hence $$c_1+c_2+\ldots +c_n=\operatorname{trace}(B)$$ $$=\operatorname{trace}(I+B)=(1+c_1)+\ldots+(1+c_n)=n+c_1+\ldots +c_n .$$

So $n=0$, contradiction. I'm not sure if my solution is correct one. It seems alright. I will be very thankful if you can confirm that the proof indeed is a correct one.

Any other possible solutions are welcomed.

  • 16
    $\begingroup$ It is correct, but too complicated. After proving that $B$ and $I+B$ are similar, you can simply say that this is no possible, since the trace of $I+B$ is $n$ plus the trace of $B$. No need to mention upper triangular matrices. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos May 28 '17 at 16:38

Let $A$ be invertible.

We have $(AB-BA)A^{-1}=I$, or $ABA^{-1}-B=I.$

But $\operatorname{tr} (ABA^{-1})=\operatorname{tr}{B},$ which is a contradiction.


It is probably worth showing that $A$ is in fact nilpotent. Indeed, by induction we get $$A^m B - B A^m = m A^m$$ for all $m\ge 0$. Taking the traces on both sides we get $$0=m \operatorname{Trace}A^m$$ so (assuming char $0$) $$\operatorname{Trace}A^m = 0$$ for all $m\ge 1$. This implies $A$ nilponent.

$\bf{Added:}$ Based on an idea of @Hans: , we can generalize this . For $X$, $Y$ matrices, let $[X,Y]=X Y - Y X$.

Assume that $[C,B]=A$, and $[C,A]=0 $ ( $C$, $A$ commute). Then $A$ nilponent.

Indeed, for all $m\ge 1$ we have $[C,A^{m-1} B] = A^{m-1} [C,B]= A^m$, and so $\operatorname{Trace} A^m=0$ . Conclude $A$ nilpotent (assume char $0$).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nice conclusion. +1. You only need to show $A^mB-A^{m-1}BA=A^m\implies \text{tr}A^m=0, \forall m\in\mathbf N$. $\endgroup$ – Hans Oct 8 '17 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Hans; yes, your approach is simpler and better! I should add this idea. $\endgroup$ – orangeskid Oct 8 '17 at 17:46

$\def\m{\mathfrak }$This result (and, in fact, orangeskid's observation) has the following far reaching generalization:

if $\m g$ is a finite dimensional (complex) Lie algebra and $\mathfrak r$ is its radical, then $[\m g,\m r]$ acts on any finite dimensional representation of $\m g$ nilpotently.

Indeed, in the question the matrices $A$ and $B$ span a Lie algebra $\m g$ of dimension (at most, really, but let us suppose) equal to $2$ which is solvable, so that the radical of $\m g$ is simply $\m g$ itself, and the theorem above tells us that $[\m g,\m g]$ acts nilpotently on finite dimensinal modules: since $[\m g,\m g]$ is spanned by $A$, the desired result follows.

Of course, this is immensely more general.

As an example:

if $A$, $B$ and $C$ are square matrices such that $CA-AC = B$, $CB-BC = aA + B$, $AB-BA = 0$, then $B$ is nilpotent and, more generally, al linear combinations of $A$ and $B$.

This comes from looking at a random 3-dimensional solvable Lie algebra.

  • $\begingroup$ One can find the proof of this, which depends on Levi's theorem, in the book on Lie algebra by Hossein Abbaspour and Martin A. Moskowitz; it is Theorem 3.5.6 there. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Oct 12 '17 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ Excellent answer! I will have to review my rusty rep theory... $\endgroup$ – orangeskid Oct 12 '17 at 19:16

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.