4
$\begingroup$

$U_n=$$\left( \begin{array}{rrrr} 1 & * & \cdots & * \\ 0 & \ddots & * & \vdots \\ \vdots & 0 & \ddots & * \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 \\ \end{array}\right) $$T_n=$$\left( \begin{array}{rrrr} * & * & \cdots & * \\ 0 & \ddots & * & \vdots \\ \vdots & 0 & \ddots & * \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & * \\ \end{array}\right) $

I have to Show that $U_n$ is a normal subgroup of $T_n$

To this end I have to show (after I have verified that $U_n$ is a subgroup of $T_n$):

$$\forall_{x\in T_n}\forall_{a\in U_n}\exists_{b\in U_n}xa=ba$$

I have looked at the case n=2

the results are

$\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & c \\ \end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & d \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{pmatrix}$ $=\begin{pmatrix} a & ad+b \\ 0 & c \\ \end{pmatrix}$ $=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & adc^{-1} \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & c \\ \end{pmatrix}$

Now the Question is how can I choose the coefficients for my Matrix $b$ in Dependance to $a$?

I suspect that the coefficients of $b$ can be determined this way

(Note that I use the notation $b_{kj}$ which translates to: I look at the coefficient in the $k$-th row at the $j$-th column of the Matrix $b$)

$$b_{kj}\begin{cases}1 &\mbox{if } j=k \\ 0 & \mbox{if } j>k\\a_{(k-1)j}a_{kj}a_{k(j+1)} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{cases}$$

How can I prove this idea?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Lauds to our colleague studiosus for a concise and elegant answer; myself, I have reverted to the somewhat computationally-intensive approach which at least has the advantage of exposing some of the detailed structure of the situation with $T_n$ and its subgroup $U_n$:

Try it like this:

Each

$M \in U_n \tag 1$

may be written in the form

$M = I + N_1, \tag 2$

where $N_1$ is strictly upper triangular, that is, upper triangular with vanishing main diagonal: likewise, every

$L \in T_n \tag 3$

takes the form

$L = D + N_2, \tag 4$

where $N_2$, like $N_1$, is strictly upper triangular; however,

$D = \text{diag}(d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_n) \tag 5$

is a diagonal matrix having every diagonal entry $d_i \ne 0$; this assumption is necessary lest $L$ be singular, since here

$\det L = \det D = \displaystyle \prod_1^n d_i; \tag 6$

scrutinizing (4), we see that it may be written

$L = D(I + D^{-1}N_2), \tag 7$

and thus

$L^{-1} = (I + D^{-1}N_2)^{-1}D^{-1}; \tag 8$

here

$D^{-1} = \text{diag}(d_1^{-1} , d_2^{-1} , \ldots, d_n^{-1} ) \tag 9$

is also a diagonal matrix with $d_i^{-1} \ne 0$, $1 \le i \le n$; furthermore, the matrix $D^{-1}N_2$ occurring in (7)-(8) is also easily seen to be strictly upper triangular, being the product of a strictly upper triangular matrix with a diagonal matrix; as such, $D^{-1}N_2$ is nilpotent:

$(D^{-1}N_2)^n = 0, \tag{10}$

which in turn implies that the matrix $I + D^{-1}N_2$ is invertible, since

$(I + D^{-1}N_2)^{-1} = \displaystyle \sum_0^{n - 1} (-D^{-1}N_2)^k$ $= I - D^{-1}N_2 + (-D^{-1}N_2)^2 + \ldots + (-D^{-1}N_2)^{n - 1}, \tag{11}$

as is easily seen by using (10) to work out the product

$(I + D^{-1}N_2) \displaystyle \sum_0^{n - 1} (-D^{-1}N_2)^k  = (I - (-D^{-1}N_2)) \displaystyle \sum_0^{n - 1} (-D^{-1}N_2)^k$ $= I + (-D^{-1}N_2)^n = I. \tag{12}$

We next observe that $D^{-1} N_2$ and all its powers are strictly upper triangular, and from thus via (11) we infer that that the diagonals of both $I + D^{-1}N_2$ and $(I + D^{-1}N_2)^{-1}$ are comprised solely of $1$s; thus we may in fact write

$(I + D^{-1}N_2)^{-1} = I + N_3, \tag{13}$

where $N_3$ is also strictly upper triangular, and we have, for any $L$, $M$ as in (2), (4):

$LML^{-1} = (D + N_2)(I + N_1)(D + N_2)^{-1}$ $= D(I + D^{-1}N_2)(I + N_1)( (I + D^{-1}N_2)^{-1}D^{-1}$ $= D(I + D^{-1}N_2)(I + N_1)(I + N_3)D^{-1}; \tag{14}$

we turn now to the product

$(I + D^{-1}N_2)(I + N_1)(I + N_3) \tag{15}$

occurring in (14); we have

$(I + N_1)(I + N_3) = I + N_1 + N_3 + N_1N_3, \tag{16}$

and each of the matrices $N_1$, $N_3$, $N_1N_3$ is strictly upper triangular, hence is their sum (it is easy to show the product of two such matrices is the same); thus we see that the product (16) is in $U_n$; and essentially the same argument gives us

$(I + D^{-1}N_2)(I + N_1)(I + N_3) \in U_n \tag{17}$

as well; finally, we observe that for any matrix such as $M$ (cf. (2)), and invertible $D$ as in (5),

$D(I + N_1)D^{-1} = DID^{-1} + DN_1D^{-1} = I + DN_1D^{-1}, \tag{18}$

where it is easy to affirm $DN_1D^{-1}$ is strictly upper triangular; now turning again to (15) we see that we may infer that

$LML^{-1} \in U_n; \tag{14}$

but $L$ may be any element of $T_n$; thus our proof that $U_n$ is normal in $T_n$ is complete.

In closing we observe that this argument largely hinges on two easy facts: first, that the product of two strictly upper triangular matrices is again strictly upper triangular; and second, the product of a strictly upper triangular matrix and a diagonal matrix is again strictly upper triangular. From these two easily established facts our demonstration flows.

Show that a certain set of invertible matrices is a normal subgroup of another set of invertible matrices (triangular)

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

I want to propose an alternative proof without computations. Note that $U_{n}$ consists exactly of those matrices in $T_{n}$ whose eigenvalues are all equal to $1$. Given $A\in U_{n}$ and $X\in T_{n}$, we immediately get that $$XAX^{-1}\in U_{n},$$ since eigenvalues are invariant under conjugation.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice answer, as opposed to my tour de grunge; endorsed; + 1!!! $\endgroup$ – Robert Lewis Jan 30 at 2:25

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.