I am trying to understand a proof concerning commuting matrices and simultaneous diagonalization of these.

It seems to be a well known result that when you take the eigenvectors of $A$ as a basis and diagonalize $B$ with it then you get a block diagonal matrix:

$$B= \begin{pmatrix} B_{1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & B_{2} & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & B_{m} \end{pmatrix},$$

where each $B_{i}$ is an $m_{g}(\lambda_{i}) \times m_{g}(\lambda_{i})$ block ($m_{g}(\lambda_{i})$ being the geometric multiplicity of $\lambda_{i}$).

My question
Why is this so? I calculated an example and, lo and behold, it really works :-) But I don't understand how it works out so neatly.

Can you please explain this result to me in an intuitive and step-by-step manner - Thank you!

  • $\begingroup$ "diagonalize B with it" doesn't seem to be what you want to say, does it? $\endgroup$ – Rasmus Jun 20 '11 at 20:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ So, we are assuming that $A$ and $B$ are both diagonalizable, and that $AB=BA$. Then you take a basis $\beta$ of eigenvectors of $A$ (listed with all the vectors corresponding to the same eigenvalue together), and you look at the coordinate matrix of $B$ relative to $\beta$, and you wonder why this matrix is a block-diagonal matrix. Is this correct? $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin Jun 20 '11 at 21:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Arturo: now I am back - yes, this is correct! $\endgroup$ – vonjd Jun 21 '11 at 6:36

Suppose that $A$ and $B$ are matrices that commute. Let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue for $A$, and let $E_{\lambda}$ be the eigenspace of $A$ corresponding to $\lambda$. Let $\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_k$ be a basis for $E_{\lambda}$.

I claim that $B$ maps $E_{\lambda}$ to itself; in particular, $B\mathbf{v}_i$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_k$, for $i=1,\ldots,k$.

To show that $B$ maps $E_{\lambda}$ to itself, it is enough to show that $B\mathbf{v}_i$ lies in $E_{\lambda}$; that is, that if we apply $A$ to $B\mathbf{v}_i$, the result ill be $\lambda(B\mathbf{v}_i)$. This is where the fact that $A$ and $B$ commute comes in. We have: $$A\Bigl(B\mathbf{v}_i\Bigr) = (AB)\mathbf{v}_i = (BA)\mathbf{v}_i = B\Bigl(A\mathbf{v}_i\Bigr) = B(\lambda\mathbf{v}_i) = \lambda(B\mathbf{v}_i).$$ Therefore, $B\mathbf{v}_i\in E_{\lambda}$, as claimed.

So, now take the basis $\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_k$, and extend it to a basis for $\mathbf{V}$, $\beta=[\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_k,\mathbf{v}_{k+1},\ldots,\mathbf{v}_n]$. To find the coordinate matrix of $B$ relative to $\beta$, we compute $B\mathbf{v}_i$ for each $i$, write $B\mathbf{v}_i$ as a linear combination of the vectors in $\beta$, and then place the corresponding coefficients in the $i$th column of the matrix.

When we compute $B\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,B\mathbf{v}_k$, each of these will lie in $E_{\lambda}$. Therefore, each of these can be expressed as a linear combination of $\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_k$ (since they form a basis for $E_{\lambda}$. So, to express them as linear combinations of $\beta$, we just add $0$s; we will have: $$\begin{align*} B\mathbf{v}_1 &= b_{11}\mathbf{v}_1 + b_{21}\mathbf{v}_2+\cdots+b_{k1}\mathbf{v}_k + 0\mathbf{v}_{k+1}+\cdots + 0\mathbf{v}_n\\ B\mathbf{v}_2 &= b_{12}\mathbf{v}_1 + b_{22}\mathbf{v}_2 + \cdots +b_{k2}\mathbf{v}_k + 0\mathbf{v}_{k+1}+\cdots + 0\mathbf{v}_n\\ &\vdots\\ B\mathbf{v}_k &= b_{1k}\mathbf{v}_1 + b_{2k}\mathbf{v}_2 + \cdots + b_{kk}\mathbf{v}_k + 0\mathbf{v}_{k+1}+\cdots + 0\mathbf{v}_n \end{align*}$$ where $b_{ij}$ are some scalars (some possibly equal to $0$). So the matrix of $B$ relative to $\beta$ would start off something like: $$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc} b_{11} & b_{12} & \cdots & b_{1k} & * & \cdots & *\\ b_{21} & b_{22} & \cdots & b_{2k} & * & \cdots & *\\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\ b_{k1} & b_{k2} & \cdots & b_{kk} & * & \cdots & *\\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & * & \cdots & *\\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & * & \cdots & * \end{array}\right).$$

So, now suppose that you have a basis for $\mathbf{V}$ that consists entirely of eigenvectors of $A$; let $\beta=[\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_n]$ be this basis, with $\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_{m_1}$ corresponding to $\lambda_1$ (with $m_1$ the algebraic multiplicity of $\lambda_1$, which equals the geometric multiplicity of $\lambda_1$); $\mathbf{v}_{m_1+1},\ldots,\mathbf{v}_{m_1+m_2}$ the eigenvectors corresponding to $\lambda_2$, and so on until we get to $\mathbf{v}_{m_1+\cdots+m_{k-1}+1},\ldots,\mathbf{v}_{m_1+\cdots+m_k}$ corresponding to $\lambda_k$. Note that $\mathbf{v}_{1},\ldots,\mathbf{v}_{m_1}$ are a basis for $E_{\lambda_1}$; that $\mathbf{v}_{m_1+1},\ldots,\mathbf{v}_{m_1+m_2}$ are a basis for $E_{\lambda_2}$, etc.

By what we just saw, each of $B\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,B\mathbf{v}_{m_1}$ lies in $E_{\lambda_1}$, and so when we express it as a linear combination of vectors in $\beta$, the only vectors with nonzero coefficients are $\mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_{m_1}$, because they are a basis for $E_{\lambda_1}$. So in the first $m_1$ columns of $[B]_{\beta}^{\beta}$ (the coordinate matrix of $B$ relative to $\beta$), the only nonzero entries in the first $m_1$ columns occur in the first $m_1$ rows.

Likewise, each of $B\mathbf{v}_{m_1+1},\ldots,B\mathbf{v}_{m_1+m_2}$ lies in $E_{\lambda_2}$, so when we express them as linear combinations of $\beta$, the only places where you can have nonzero coefficients are in the coefficients of $\mathbf{v}_{m_1+1},\ldots,\mathbf{v}_{m_1+m_2}$. So the $(m_1+1)$st through $(m_1+m_2)$st column of $[B]_{\beta}^{\beta}$ can only have nonzero entries in the $(m_1+1)$st through $(m_1+m_2)$st rows. And so on.

That means that $[B]_{\beta}^{\beta}$ is in fact block-diagonal, with the blocks corresponding to the eigenspaces $E_{\lambda_i}$ of $A$, exactly as described.


I will write $k_i=m_g(\lambda_i)$.

You are looking for the general form of a matrix $B$ that commutes with $$A= \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_1 I_{k_1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda_2 I_{k_2} & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & \lambda_m I_{k_m} \end{pmatrix}.$$

If you put $B$ in the same block structure, you have

$$B= \begin{pmatrix} B_{11} & B_{12} & \cdots & B_{1m} \\ B_{21} & B_{22} & \cdots & B_{2m} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ B_{m1} & B_{m2} & \cdots & B_{mm} \end{pmatrix},$$ where $B_{ij}$ is a $k_i$-by-$k_j$ matrix.

Then $$AB= \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_1 B_{11} & \lambda_1 B_{12} & \cdots & \lambda_1 B_{1m} \\ \lambda_2 B_{21} & \lambda_2 B_{22} & \cdots & \lambda_2 B_{2m} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \lambda_m B_{m1} & \lambda_m B_{m2} & \cdots & \lambda_m B_{mm} \end{pmatrix},$$ while $$BA= \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_1 B_{11} & \lambda_2 B_{12} & \cdots & \lambda_m B_{1m} \\ \lambda_1 B_{21} & \lambda_2 B_{22} & \cdots & \lambda_m B_{2m} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \lambda_1 B_{m1} & \lambda_2 B_{m2} & \cdots & \lambda_m B_{mm} \end{pmatrix}.$$

You can compare off-diagonal blocks to see that $B$ must have the desired form if $BA=AB$, because $\lambda_i\neq \lambda j$ if $i\neq j$.


Getting a block diagonal matrix expressing$~B$ just means that each eigenspace for$~A$ (whose direct sum fills the entire space since $A$ is supposed diagonalisable) is $B$-stable. And a useful fact that applies here is that when two linear operators commute, then every subspace that is the kernel or image of a polynomial in one of the operators is automatically stable for the other operator. A polynomial in the first operator is just another operator$~\psi$ that commutes with the second operator$~\phi$, so it suffices to show that for the kernel and the image of $\psi$ are $\phi$-stable when $\psi$ and $\phi$ commute:

  • Kernel: if $v\in\ker\psi$ then $\psi(\phi(v))=\phi(\psi(v))=\phi(0)=0$, so indeed $\phi(v)\in\ker\psi$.
  • Image: if $v=\psi(w)$ then $\phi(v)=\phi(\psi(w))=\psi(\phi(w))$, which indeed is in the image of $\psi$.

The eigenspace of$~A$ for $\lambda$ is of course just the special case of the kernel of the polynomial $A-\lambda I$ in$~A$.


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.