In my textbook there is a task in which I have to prove the relation \begin{equation} AB=BA\Leftrightarrow A^2B^2=B^2A^2. \end{equation} For ($\Rightarrow$) it is easy \begin{equation} AB=BA\Rightarrow (AB)^2=(BA)^2\Rightarrow ABAB=BABA\Rightarrow BBAA=AABB. \end{equation} But how do I prove ($\Leftarrow$)?
-
How did you reach the last implication in $\rightarrow$? – AspiringMat Dec 03 '16 at 12:23
-
2Using the fact that $AB=BA$. – Johny Dec 03 '16 at 12:36
-
No. Switching $AB$ to $BA$ in the equations gives you: $ABBA=BAAB$. This is not what you want to show. – AspiringMat Dec 03 '16 at 12:37
-
2@AspiringMat: $ABAB = A(BA)B = A(AB)B = AABB$. Similar for the other side of the equation. – Dominik Dec 03 '16 at 12:40
-
2Left hand side: $ABAB=AABB$. Right hand side: $BABA=BBAA$. I realize maybe I should have written the last equality as $AABB=BBAA$for clarity. – Johny Dec 03 '16 at 12:44
-
Ohh that makes more sense now, I was confused because I was trying to relate the first with $A^2B^2$ which wasn't working. But I also noticed that Dominik gave a counter example below. – AspiringMat Dec 03 '16 at 12:48
-
15Which textbook? – Ali Caglayan Dec 03 '16 at 14:49
-
7The backward implication is true when both $A$ and $B$ are positive semidefinite, but false in general. – user1551 Dec 03 '16 at 18:08
3 Answers
The equivalence is incorrect. Take for example $$A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix} \qquad B = \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 2\end{pmatrix}.$$
- 19,963
-
-
8
-
4Note that you could prove this without any explicit matrices using a division ring you know could be represented as matrices - think quaternion units. – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Dec 03 '16 at 21:37
-
2@TheGreatDuck: That wasn't my intent; rather I just thought it provides a more intuitive view of why the claim is wrong, if you've encountered the quaternions. – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Dec 03 '16 at 21:45
-
1@TheGreatDuck I totally just learned something from R's comment! Glad he posted it. – djechlin Dec 03 '16 at 21:59
-
1@R. I suggest posting that as a standalone answer since it is very interesting and valuable. You might add a phrase like "If you have knowledge of ... " or "an alternate proof..." to keep people like TheGreatDuck from complaining. – djechlin Dec 03 '16 at 21:59
-
If you're familiar with the quaternions, and the fact that they have matrix representations, one easy way to see that the reverse implication is false is to consider the fact that
$$i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1$$
(and thus the squares of the quaternion units commute) but that $i$, $j$, and $k$ themselves don't commute. These non-/commutativity relations will carry over to any matrix representation.
The implication '$\Leftarrow$' is so obviously false it surprises me that one should even ask this question. Though commutation of matrices can arise in many ways, one of the most simple ways is when one of the matrices is a scalar matrix (multiple of the identity). So if '$\Leftarrow$' were true, it would mean at least that whenever $A^2$ is a scalar matrix then $A$ commutes with every other matrix $B$; this clearly cannot be true.
There is a multitude of kinds of matrices whose square is scalar without any reason for the matrix itself to commute with all other matrices: the matrix of any reflection operation ($A^2=I$), that of a rotation by a quarter turn $(A^2=-I$), or a nilpotent matrix of index$~2$ (i.e., $A\neq0$ but $A^2=0$). These give many choices for a counterexample. (In fact the only way $A$ can commute with all other matrices is for $A$ to be scalar itself, but you don't need to know this fact to find counterexamples to '$\Leftarrow$'.)
- 115,048
-
OK, so I've earned a downvote. I know it is useless to ask why, but let me guess it is because of my opening phrase, which may seem insufficiently polite towards OP. I do not mean put into question the merits of OP, of which frankly I am totally ignorant. What I do mean to say is that when one asks a question one should stop to think about the implications of what one is asking. OP claims this was written in a textbook; given the upvotes on the (unanswered) comment asking which, I think I'm not alone in doubting this was genuinely stated like this (without additional hypotheses) in a textbook. – Marc van Leeuwen Dec 04 '16 at 11:19
-
5Then to be specific, it is obviously false to someone writing a textbook. It may not be obviously false to someone reading a textbook :-) – Steve Jessop Dec 04 '16 at 13:57