This question builds on a series of questions looking for elementary proofs that $AB=\mathrm{Id}$ implies $BA=\mathrm{Id}$, for $A$ and $B$ both $n \times n$ matrices over a commutative ring. First the question, then motivation, then a small bit of progress.

Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $A$ and $B$ be $n \times n$ matrices with entries in $R$ satisfying $AB=z \mathrm{Id}_n$ for some $z \in R$. We cannot conclude that $BA = z \mathrm{Id}_n$: Take $R=\mathbb{Z}$, $z=0$, $A = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ and $B = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$. However, we can conclude $z^n BA = z^{n+1} \mathrm{Id}$ (proof below).

What is the smallest $m$ (as a function of $n$) for which we can conclude $z^m BA = z^{m+1} \mathrm{Id}$?

Motivation Suppose that we can do this for some particular $m$ and $n$. Let $k[a,b,z]$ be the polynomial ring in $2n^2+1$ variables, $a_{ij}$, $b_{ij}$ and $z$ (over some field $k$). Let $S$ be the quotient of $k[a,b,z]$ by the $n^2$ relations gotten by expanding the matrix product $AB=z \mathrm{Id}_n$.

Since this question is framed for an arbitrary commutative ring, it applies in particular to $S$. So, if the answer is "yes" for some $(m,n)$, then the entries of $z^m BA - z^{m+1} \mathrm{Id}_n$ are zero in $S$. In other words, they lie in the ideal of $k[a,b,z]$ generated by the entries of $AB-z \mathrm{Id}_n$. I.e. we must have polynomial relations $$z^m \left( \sum_r B_{ir} A_{rj} - z \delta_{ij} \right) = \sum_{k, \ell} P_{ij}^{k \ell}(a, b, z) \left( \sum_s A_{ks} A_{s\ell} - z \delta_{k \ell} \right) \quad (\ast)$$ for some polynomials $P_{ij}^{k \ell}(a, b, z)$.

Put a grading on $k[a,b,z]$, where $\deg a_{ij} = \deg b_{ij}=1$ and $\deg z=2$. Then we may assume that the $P_{ij}^{k \ell}$ have degree $m$. Plugging in $z=1$ to $(\ast)$, we get a high school algebra proof that $AB=\mathrm{Id}_n$ implies $BA = \mathrm{Id}_n$ involving polynomials of degree $\leq m$.

Conversely, if we have a proof that $AB=\mathrm{Id}_n$ implies $BA = \mathrm{Id}_n$ by pure high school algebra (adding, multiplying and dividing polynomials and substituting in the equations $AB = \mathrm{Id}_n$) then we can take every formula in that proof in replace each $1$ by an appropriate power of $z$ to make the equations homogenous. The result will be a proof of $(\ast)$ for some $m$ and, again, the size of $m$ is a measure of the complexity of the proof.

Minor progress It is good enough to take $m=n$. Proof: simplify $(\det B) \mathrm{Ad}(A) A B A$ in two ways. One way gives $$(\det B) {\Big (} \mathrm{Ad}(A) A {\Big )} B A = (\det B) (\det A) BA = (\det A) ( \det B) BA = \det(AB) BA = z^n BA$$ the other gives $$(\det B) \mathrm{Ad}(A) {\Big (} A B {\Big )} A =(\det B) \mathrm{Ad}(A) z A = z (\det B) (\det A) = z \det(AB) = z^{n+1}.$$

When $n=1$, we can take $m=0$, as $R$ is commutative. For $n=2$, the above example of $z=0$, $A = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ and $B = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ shows we need $m \geq 1$ and it is easy to adapt this to show that we need $m \geq 1$ for any $n \geq 1$.

This is all I know! I don't even have an example to show that $m \geq 2$ is necessary for any $n$, although my gut says $m$ should grow linearly with $n$.

  • $\begingroup$ Dear David: Could you tell me what $k$ is? $\endgroup$ – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Aug 6 '14 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Pierre-YvesGaillard Some field. (Edited to add) $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Aug 6 '14 at 19:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\newcommand\adj{\operatorname{adj}}$ Actually, you can always get by with $m = n-1$. Indeed, $AB = zI_n$ yields $\adj\left(AB\right) = \adj\left(zI_n\right) = z^{n-1} I_n$, so that $z^{n-1} I_n = \adj\left(AB\right) = \adj B \cdot \adj A$ and thus $z^{n-1} BA = B \underbrace{\left(z^{n-1} I_n\right)}_{= \adj B \cdot \adj A} A = \underbrace{B \adj B}_{= \left(\det B\right) I_n} \underbrace{A \adj A}_{= \left(\det A\right) I_n} = \left(\det B\right) I_n \left(\det A\right) I_n = \underbrace{\det A \cdot \det B}_{=\det\left(AB\right) = \det\left(zI_n\right) = z^n} \cdot I_n = z^n I_n$. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Aug 6 '14 at 21:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For $n = 3$, the bound $m = 2$ is optimal. For $n = 4$, the bound $m = 3$ is optimal. This is all my stupid Sage code can do. I am saying "stupid" since it uses Gröbner bases, which explode badly in high dimensions. A smarter approach would start by observing that the requirements are homogeneous polynomial equations if the entries of $A$ and $B$ are given degree $1$ and $z$ is given degree $2$. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Aug 6 '14 at 21:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here's an observation which restates the problem in a fairly simple form. Notice that $(BA)^{2} = z(BA),$ and notice that if $X^{2} = zX,$ it follows by induction that $(X-zI)^{r} = z^{r-1}X - z^{r}I$ for each positive integer $r.$ Hence the question asks for the least positive integer $m$ such that $(BA-zI)^{m+1} = 0.$ $\endgroup$ – Geoff Robinson Aug 8 '14 at 22:47

Just some considerations:

Suppose $AB=zI_n$. If $z=0$, then $zBA=0=z^2I_n$, so $m=1$ is ok.

If $z\neq 0$ is not a zero divisor, consider the multiplicatively closed set $S_z:=\{z^n, n\in\mathbb{N}\}$. Since $z$ is not a zero divisor, we have an injection of $R$ in $S_z^{-1}R$, and then we can see the relation $AB=zI_n$ in this bigger ring. We have then $$\left(\frac{1}{z}A\right)B=I$$ hence $$B\left(\frac{1}{z}A\right)=I_n,$$and finally $$BA=zI_n,$$ that means $m=0$ is ok. If $z$ is nilpotent, we have $z^m=0$ for some $m\geq 2$. Then, $$0=z^mBA=z^{m+1}I$$ The argument above fail if $R$ is not commutative, cause in general $AB=I$ doesn't imply $BA=I$ (ring that satisfies this condition are called stable finite, it would be interesting to understand if the localization of a stable finite ring si still stable finite).


Comment posted as a community wiki answer.

I'll describe below how I understand David's question, but I suspect that my understanding is incorrect, and would be most grateful to whoever would try to explain to me what I'm missing.

Let $$ R:=\mathbb Z[(A_{ij}),(B_{ij}),Z] $$ be the polynomial ring over $\mathbb Z$ in $2n^2+1$ variables, $A_{ij}$, $B_{ij}$ and $Z$.

David shows that there is a least $m=m_n\le n$ such that there exists a family of polynomials $P_{ij}^{k \ell}$ in $R$ satisfying $$ Z^m \left( \sum_r B_{ir} A_{rj} - Z \delta_{ij} \right) = \sum_{k, \ell}\left( \sum_s A_{ks} A_{s\ell} - Z \delta_{k \ell} \right)P_{ij}^{k \ell}. $$ Put a grading on $R$, where $\deg A_{ij} = \deg B_{ij}=1$ and $\deg Z=2$. Then we may assume that the $P_{ij}^{k \ell}$ are homogeneous of degree $m$.

Is it possible to compute $m=m_n$ explicitly?

Is it possible to write down explicitly, for all $n$, a family of polynomials $P_{ij}^{k \ell}$ satisfying the above conditions?


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.