This question already has an answer here:

Suppose we have fields $\mathbb{K}_1, \mathbb{K}_2$ such that $$\mathbb{K}_1 \subset \mathbb{K}_2.$$

Question Let $A, B$ be square $n\times n$ matrices over $\mathbb{K}_1$. If there exists $P_2 \in \mathrm{GL}(n, \mathbb{K}_2)$ s.t.

$$ P_2^{-1}AP_2=B, $$

then there exists $P_1 \in \mathrm{GL}(n, \mathbb{K}_1)$ s.t. $$ P_1^{-1}AP_1=B. $$ Is it true?


marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen abstract-algebra May 26 '16 at 6:46

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.


Here is a somewhat more elementary proof that works if the field $\mathbb{K}_1$ is sufficiently big (for example it works with infinite fields). Assume $A$ and $B$ are similar over $\mathbb{K}_2$, so you have $P \in \textrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{K}_2)$ such that

$$P A = B P$$

Now write $P = (p_{i,j})$, and pick a basis $(e_1, \ldots, e_r)$ of $\textrm{Vect}_{\mathbb{K}_1}(p_{i,j})$ as a $\mathbb{K}_1$-vector space. We can thus write

$$P = \sum_{i = 1}^r e_i P_i$$

with $P_i \in M_n(\mathbb{K}_1)$ for $i \in [\!|1,r|\!]$ (note that the $P_i$ need not be invertible in general). And because $(e_1, \ldots, e_r)$ is free, we get $P_i A = B P_i$ for all $i \in [\!|1,r|\!]$. Now consider the polynomial

$$f(X_1, \ldots, X_r) = \det \left(\sum_{i = 1}^r X_i P_i \right) \in \mathbb{K}_1[X_1, \ldots, X_r]$$

Since $P$ is invertible, we have $f(e_1, \ldots, e_r) \neq 0$, so $f$ is non zero. And if $|\mathbb{K}_1| > n$, then there exist $(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_r) \in \mathbb{K}_1^r$ such that $f(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_r) \neq 0$ (see lemma below for an explanation). So the matrix $P' = \sum_{i = 1}^r \lambda_i P_i$ is in $\textrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{K}_1)$ and satisfies $A = P'^{-1} B P'$.

Lemma : Let $f \in \mathbb{K}[X_1, \ldots, X_r]$ be a non zero polynomial. Assume

$$|\mathbb{K}| > \deg(f) = \max_{1 \le i \le r} (\deg_{i}(f))$$

Then there exist a point $(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_r) \in \mathbb{K}^r$ such that $f(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_r) \neq 0$.

Proof : We will prove this by induction on the number $r \ge 1$ of variables. The case $r = 1$ follows from the fact that a polynomial of degree $d$ has at most $d$ roots. If $r \ge 2$, write $d = \deg_{r}(f)$ and

$$f = \sum_{k = 0}^{d} a_k X_r^k$$

where the $a_i$ are polynomials in $r-1$ variables with $\deg(a_i) \le \deg(f)$. Now $a_d$ is non zero, so by induction, there is a point $(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_{r-1}) \in \mathbb{K}_1^{r-1}$ such that $a_{d}(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_{r-1}) \neq 0$. Finally, since $g(X) = f(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_{r-1}, X)$ is a non zero polynomial with $\deg(g) \le \deg(f)$, you can find $\lambda_n$ such that $g(\lambda_n) \neq 0$. Which concludes.

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't understand what $\text{Vect}_{\mathbb{K}_1}(p_{i,j})$ is supposed to be. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 7 '11 at 16:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: I understand $\mathrm{Vect}_{\mathbb{K}_1}$ as the vector subspace of $\mathbb{K}_2$ (regarded as a $\mathbb{K}_1$-vector space) spanned by $(p_{1, 1}, p_{1, 2} \ldots p_{n, n})$. $$$$ @Joel: I like very much this proof. It couldn't be simpler than that. The only thing I can't understand is that "if $\mathbb{K}_1$ is sufficiently big...". Why? We have a polynomial $f$ and know that it is not null, because in an appropriate extension we have $f(e_1 \ldots e_r)\ne 0$. So we must have $f(\mathrm{something})\ne 0$ for $\mathrm{something} \in \mathbb{K}_1$... Where am I wrong? $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro Jun 7 '11 at 16:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dissonance: take $\mathbb{K}_1 = \mathbb{F}_p$ and, for example, $f(x_1) = x_1^p - x_1$. For a homogeneous example take $f(x_1, x_2) = x_1^p x_2 - x_2^p x_1$. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 7 '11 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: Ok, now I see. Thank you. Can we say that Joel's proof works only if $\mathrm{char}(\mathbb{K}_1)$ is greater than some lower bound? And, if affirmative, how big is this lower bound? $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro Jun 7 '11 at 17:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dissonance : The assumption is not on the characteristic of the field, but rather on its cardinality. By sufficiently large, I mean that if $|\mathbb{K}_1| > n$ (where $n$ is the size of the matrices), the proof should work. I included an explanation in the answer above. $\endgroup$ – Joel Cohen Jun 7 '11 at 22:45

Yes. It is true. $A$ and $B$ are similar iff $\lambda I-A$ and $\lambda I-B$ are equivalent iff they have the same invariant factors or the same determinate factors. These are only depend on matrix itself.

see Similar matrix


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.