Let $A,B$ be two diagonalizable linear operators, such that their commutator $\left[A,B\right] = AB-BA$ has an eigenvalue $\lambda = 0$. Does this mean $A$ and $B$ share an eigenvector?

Of course, the vice-versa is correct. If they do share an eigenvector, the commutator necessarily has an eigenvalue of $0$. I'm not sure though if this is a sufficient condition, or only a necessary one.


Clearly we can pick a basis so that one of the operators is diagonal already. Here's a small counterexample of this sort: $$ A = \begin{pmatrix} \lambda & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \mu \end{pmatrix} \qquad B = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}. $$ The eigenvalues of $B$ are $\pm \sqrt{2}$ and $0$, and all eigenvectors are of the form $(1,a,\pm 1)$, none of which live in one of the eigenspaces of $A$. But $AB-BA$ has first row and first column all zero, so $(1,0,0)$ is an eigenvector with eigenvalue zero.

  • $\begingroup$ This is just the first example I came up with: there are bound to be many more of this sort. In the $2\times2$ case one can check there are no such examples. $\endgroup$ – Chappers Jul 15 '17 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ Is there some simple intuition behind this example? In my example the point is to set up $AB$ and $BA$ to send a given vector to another given vector without fixing an invariant subspace for either (so that no eigenvectors are determined by my setup). You seem to have done something slightly different. $\endgroup$ – Ian Jul 16 '17 at 2:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Ian I calculated $\det{[A,B]}$ for diagonal $A$ and a general $B$ to find out what the condition for having a zero eigenvalue was. It turned out it could be factored to $(d_1-d_2)(d_2-d_3)(d_3-d_1)(b_{12}b_{23}b_{31}-b_{13}b_{32}b_{21})$. So we can force a zero eigenvalue by setting two diagonal elements equal, and then any $B$ with no eigenvectors in the eigenspace of the multiple eigenvalue of $A$ will work. $\endgroup$ – Chappers Jul 16 '17 at 10:15

Take $A,B$ to be $4 \times 4$ matrices such that the first column of $A$ is $e_2$, the last column of $A$ is $e_3$, the second column of $B$ is $e_3$, and the first column of $B$ is $e_4$. Then


(The point of the choices was to create two "parallel paths" from $1$ to $3$, namely $1 \to 4 \to 3$ and $1 \to 2 \to 3$.)

Notice though that the choices we made here did not create an invariant subspace yet: $A$ sends the span of $\{ e_1,e_4 \}$ to the span of $\{ e_2,e_3 \}$ and $B$ sends the span of $\{ e_1,e_2 \}$ to the span of $\{ e_3,e_4 \}$. So these choices do not uniquely specify any eigenvectors of either matrix. Thus taking the other two unspecified columns of $A$ and those of $B$ at random will typically give all different eigenvectors.


Here is another counterexample. Let $n>2$ and

  • $A=\operatorname{diag}(n,\,n-1,\,\ldots,\,1)$,
  • $T$ be the skew-symmetric Toeplitz matrix whose first row is $(0,\,1,\,\frac12,\,\ldots,\,\frac1{n-1})$,
  • $C$ be any singular matrix with a zero diagonal and also a nonzero off-diagonal entry in its every column; e.g. when $n$ is odd, one may take any skew-symmetric matrix with nonzero off-diagonal entries; when $n$ is even, one may take $C=\pmatrix{J-I&J-I\\ J-I&J-I}$, where $J$ is the all-one matrix of size $n/2$.
  • $B=T\circ C$, the Hadamard product of $T$ and $C$.

Then $AB-BA=C$ is singular, but by construction, every column of $B$ possesses a nonzero off-diagonal entry. Hence $A$ and $B$ do not share any eigenvector.


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.