2
$\begingroup$

I am reading a proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem here. For a rough outline of the proof, let $A$ be a matrix representing the endomorphism $\phi$ over finitely-generated module $M$ with generators $m_1,...,m_n$. Now, we can regard $M$ as an $R[x]$-module by letting $x$ act as $\phi$.

This next part is where I am confused. They let $\mathfrak{m}$ the column vector whose entries are the $m_j$. Then, we get $(xI-A)\mathfrak{m}=0$, which I guess works by letting matrix multiplication be letting the elements in the matrix with coefficients in $R[x]$ act on the elements of $\mathfrak{m}$.

The next step multiplies both sides by the adjugate matrix to get $[\det(xI-A)]I\cdot\mathfrak{m}=0$, which then completes the proof, as we $p(\phi)=0$, where $p(x):=\det(xI-A)$.

I guess my real question is: what is actually going on? I've never seen matrices used this way; is this just a formal manipulation? But then it feels like multiplying by the adjugate matrix is "wrong". How do I know that the manipulation in $R[x]$ preserves the module action structure? I'm sorry for phrasing this poorly but I just have a feeling that something is off and I may not have it articulated it that well.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As you say, $M$ is an $R[x]$-module. What us happening here is that $M^n$ (considered as a space of column vectors) is a left-module for the ring $M_n(R[x])$ of $n$ by $n$ matrices over $R[x]$. Both $xI-A$ and its adjugate are elements of $M_n(R[x])$. $\endgroup$ Sep 14, 2020 at 3:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AnginaSeng It seems like this is a mistake in the proof: I don't think we want to look at $M^n,$ but rather think of elements of $M$ itself as coming from a surjection $R^n\to M$ (i.e., choosing a generating set $\{m_i\}$ of $M$). Otherwise, $\phi$ is not necessarily representable as a matrix, and moreover even if it were, it would be diagonal and there would be little reason to consider it as a matrix in the first place (we would simply be looking at multiplication by a scalar $r\in R$ on $M$). $\endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Sep 14, 2020 at 4:48

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

My previous answer made a false claim -- that we wanted to view $M$ as an $M_{n\times n}(R[x])$-module. In fact, this will not work in general: while given an endomorphism $\phi\in\operatorname{End}_R(M)$ and a generating set $\{m_1,\dots, m_n\}$ of $M$ we may produce a matrix $A_\phi\in M_{n\times n}(R)$ such that $$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} R^n @>A_\phi>> R^n \\ @V\pi VV @VV\pi V\\ M @>>\phi > M \end{CD} $$ commutes, it is not the case that in general a matrix $B\in M_{n\times n}(R)$ induces a well-defined endomorphism of $M.$ However, this doesn't mean we can't use the main idea that $(xI - A)^{\textrm{adj}}(xI -A) = \det(xI - A)I\in M_{n\times n}(R[x]),$ we just need to be careful.

First, let's choose our generating set $\{m_1,\dots, m_n\}$ of $M$ and our matrix representation $A_\phi$ of $\phi$ with respect to this generating set. Explicitly, we have some collection of constants $r_{ij}\in R$ such that $$ \phi(m_i) = \sum_{j=1}^n r_{ij} m_j. $$ If we let $\delta_{ij} = \begin{cases} 1,\quad i = j\\ 0,\quad i\neq j\end{cases}$ and we consider $M$ as an $R[x]$-module where $x$ acts on $M$ by $xm = \phi(m),$ then the previous equation is equivalent to $$ \sum_{j}(x\delta_{ij} - a_{ij})m_j = 0. $$

Observe that if we assemble the coefficients of the $m_j$ as we range over all $j$ and all $i$ into a matrix, we obtain $$(x\delta_{ij} - a_{ij})_{ij} = xI - A_\phi.$$ Now we apply the adjugate trick. Write $(xI - A_\phi)^{\textrm{adj}} = (b_{ij})_{ij}.$ Then the fact that $(xI - A_\phi)^{\textrm{adj}}(xI - A_\phi) = \det(xI - A_\phi) I$ means that $$ \sum_{k=1}^n b_{ik}(x\delta_{kj} - a_{kj}) = \det(xI - A_\phi)\delta_{ij}. $$ Taking our equation $0 = \sum_{j}(x\delta_{kj} - a_{kj})m_j$ and multiplying by $b_{ik},$ we have $$ 0 = \sum_j b_{ik}(x\delta_{kj} - a_{kj})m_j. $$ Next we sum these equations over $k$: \begin{align*} 0 &= \sum_{k=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^n b_{ik}(x\delta_{kj} - a_{kj})m_j\\ &=\sum_{j=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^n b_{ik}(x\delta_{kj} - a_{kj})m_j\\ &= \sum_{j=1}^n\det(xI - A_\phi)\delta_{ij} m_j\\ &= \det(xI - A_\phi)m_i. \end{align*} This holds for any $i,$ so that $\det(xI - A_\phi) = p(x)$ acts on $M$ identically as zero; i.e., $p(\phi) : M\to M$ is zero.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Perfect! Thank you. $\endgroup$
    – Vasting
    Sep 14, 2020 at 4:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vasting you're welcome! I should also note that there's another error in the proof which I didn't mention explicitly in my answer -- see my comment under the main question. $\endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Sep 14, 2020 at 4:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vasting: The short answer is that each entry of $B\mathbf{r}$ is an $R$-linear combination of the components of $\mathbf{r}.$ Since $K$ is an $R$-submodule of $R^n$ and each component of $\mathbf{r}$ is in $K,$ the result follows. More explicitly, write $B = (b_{ij})$ with all $b_{ij}\in R.$ If $\mathbf{r} = (r_1,r_2,\dots, r_n)^T\in K^n$ then the $k$th component of $B\mathbf{r}\in R^n$ is $\sum_{i = 1}^nb_{ki}r_i.$ Then each $b_{ki}r_i\in K$ and the sum of elements in $K$ is again in $K,$ as $K$ is an $R$-submodule of $M.$ So each entry of $B\mathbf{r}$ is in $K,$ which proves the result. $\endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Sep 14, 2020 at 5:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vasting Ah, you're right: in fact, it doesn't make sense to say each $r_i\in K,$ as $K\subseteq R^n,$ not $R.$ Something is off here, but I'm not 100% sure how to fix it at the moment. I'll try to return later and update this with a proper explanation! $\endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Sep 14, 2020 at 20:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vasting I'm not sure that the original approach of considering $M$ as an $M_{n\times n}(R[x])$-module is salvageable, so I've explained how to apply the adjugate trick without actually treating $M$ as a module over the matrix ring. $\endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Sep 15, 2020 at 20:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .