4

Problem

Let $k$ be an odd integer. Let $A$ be a matrix such that $A^{k} = A+ I$. Prove that $\det(A) > 0$.

My attempt:

We know that $\det(A) = \lambda_1\dots\lambda_n$ where $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are the complex eigenvalues of $A$. We know that $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are roots of $X^{2k+1} - X -1$. I can see graphically that the only real root of $X^{2k+1} -X -1$ is positive by plotting some graphs, and since the product of two conjugate complex numbers is positive, I think it has something to do with it.

The issue is that if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$, I'm not sure that $\bar{\lambda}$ is an eigenvalue as well since $A$ possibly has complex coefficients (it's not specified in the statement).

Sabrebar
  • 147
  • But if $A$ had complex entries, then in general the determinant would also be complex, so it would make no sense to ask whether this determinant is positive. – TonyK Jan 20 '24 at 17:33
  • The determinant is indeed complex but in particular, it can be real and positive – Sabrebar Jan 20 '24 at 17:35
  • 2
    I'm afraid I can't make sense of that! – TonyK Jan 20 '24 at 17:38
  • It is customary to talk of "a positive number". even in the case of complex numbers, if the number in question is real (i.e., its imaginary part is zero) and if it is positive – DonAntonio Jan 20 '24 at 17:41
  • 2
    So the question should read "Prove that $\det A$ is real and strictly greater than $0$", or "Prove that if $\det A$ is real, then it is strictly greater than $0$"? It looks to me like you haven't thought this through. – TonyK Jan 20 '24 at 17:53
  • Why are you sure that polynomial has one single real root? if this is so then you've solved your problem as that polynomial has a real root between $;1;$ and $;2;$ ... – DonAntonio Jan 20 '24 at 17:58
  • Hint: You can use Descartes rule of signs to conclude that there is exactly one positive zero. Descartes rule of signs implies that there are either two or zero negative roots. Then, use the derivative to find the local max to distinguish these cases. – Michael Burr Jan 20 '24 at 18:09
  • @MichaelBurr thanks ill look at it – Sabrebar Jan 20 '24 at 18:14
  • There’s a condition missing. Let $A$ be a diagonal matrix whose entries are all a complex root of your polynomial. – Michael Burr Jan 20 '24 at 18:24
  • 1
    The statement in question is false even if $A$ is real. Consider the case where $k=-1$ and $A$ is the companion matrix for $x^2+x-1$. – user1551 Jan 20 '24 at 18:46
  • 1
    @user1551 The asker should have said $k>0$. – Jean Marie Jan 20 '24 at 19:01
  • The statement is true under the additional assumptions that $k>0$ and $A$ is a real matrix, because $x^{2k+1}-x-1=0$ has not any negative roots. – user1551 Jan 20 '24 at 19:56
  • The question is more or less solved here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1108742. – user26857 Jan 20 '24 at 21:38
  • @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez: Are you claiming that the condition $A^{2k+1}=A+I$ implies that the determinant is real? Your comment seems to imply that. It may even be true, but that is by no means self-evident. – TonyK Jan 21 '24 at 01:40

3 Answers3

5

Let $n$ be such that $A$ is an $n×n$ matrix. Let us also assume that $k$ is positive.

Then $$\det(A) =\prod_i \lambda_i^{c_i},$$ where the $\lambda_i$s are the algebraic eigenvalues of $A$ and $c_i$, for each such integer $i$, is the algebraic multiplicity of $\lambda_i$ as an algebraic eigenvalue of $A$. Then each $\lambda_i$ is the root of the polynomial $X^{2k+1}-X-1$. The $c_i$s as above are positive integers that sum to $n$.

The challenge of the problem, however, is this: We do not know a priori precisely which subset of the roots of the equation $X^{2k+1}-X-1$, are the algebraic eignevalues of $A$, and furthermore, with which multiplicity does it appear as an algebraic eigenvalue of $A$. For example, the real root of the polynomial $X^{2k+1}-X-1$ may be the one algebraic eignvalue of $A$, with multiplicity $n$.

However, if $A$ is real, then one can look at the polynomial $\det(A-\lambda I)$ [a real polynomial in $\lambda$] and note the following:

  1. If $\lambda_i$ is a complex non real algebraic eigenvalue of $A$ with multiplicity $c_i$ for some positive intrger $c_i$, then $\bar{\lambda}_i$ is also an algebraic eigenvalue of $A$, with the same multiplicity $c_i$. However, for each such $c_i$ note that $\lambda_i^{c_i}\bar{\lambda}_i^{c_i}$ is $|\lambda_i|^{2c_i}$ which is necessarily positive.

  2. So from 1. above it follows that, assuming $A$ is real, that $\det(A)$ must be of an integral power of the real root $y$ of the polynomial $X^{2k+1}-X-1$, times a positive number [make sure you see why]. More precisely, $\det(A)$ must be of the form

$$\det(A) = y^c \prod_i \lambda_i^{c_i}\bar{\lambda}_i^{c_i}$$ $$= \ y^c \prod_i |\lambda_i|^{2c_i}.$$ But as already observed in the OP, $y$ is positive. So from this it follows that $\det(A)$ must also be positive, if $A$ is real.

If $A$ is allowed to not be real then the claimed result does not always hold. Indeed, let $A$ be a $1×1$ matrix where the one entry of $A$ is a complex non-real root of $X^{2k+1}-X-1$. Then $\det(A)$ is simply that nonreal root, which is not positive.

Mike
  • 20,434
  • Ok I guess I was struggling because I was considering complex matrices aswell. Now I have to prove that the polynomial has only one positive real root – Sabrebar Jan 20 '24 at 19:22
  • @Sabrebar all you need to show is in fact that all real roots are positive. I will edit my answer to reflect this. – Mike Jan 20 '24 at 19:24
  • In fact @Sabrebar the polynomial does have only one real root it isn't hard to check, but even if it had more, it is easy to check that all real roots are positive and that $y^c$ as above would be replaced w a product of a multiset of these real positive roots – Mike Jan 20 '24 at 19:30
  • As far as I know there are eigenvalues, not algebraic or of other kind. – user26857 Jan 20 '24 at 21:54
  • @user26857 I use algebraic eigenvalues as roots of the polynomial $\det(A-\lambda I)$ [this is a polynomial in $\lambda$ of course], to differentiate clearly from the geometric eigenvalues: $\lambda$ such that $Ax=\lambda x$ has a nontrivial solution – Mike Jan 21 '24 at 02:33
  • Take the $2×2$ matrix with $1$s on both diagonal element and $1$ on one of the remaining entries. Then $\lambda =1$ is an algebraic eigenvalue w multiplicity $2$ but a geometric eigenvalue w multiplicity only $1$. – Mike Jan 21 '24 at 02:35
  • @Mike Actually $\lambda=1$ is an eigenvalue with algebraic multiplicity 2 and geometric multiplicity 1. There are no algebraic, respectively geometric eigenvalues. – user26857 Jan 24 '24 at 15:45
1

Assuming that $A$ is intended to be a real matrix, say $A \in \mathrm{Mat}_n(\mathbb R)$, then its eigenvalues (say $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\}$ where the $\lambda_i$ are not necessarily distinct) consist of pairs $(w,\bar{w})$ with $w \neq \bar{w}$ and the set of real roots of $f(t) = t^{2k+1}-t-1$.

But $f'(t) = (2k+1)t^{2k}-1$, hence if we let $\eta_k = (\frac{1}{2k+1})^{1/2k}$, we see that $f'(t)$ is positive outside of the interval $[-\eta_k,\eta_k]$ and negative in the interior of that interval (and vanishes at the end points). Thus $f$ is increasing on $(-\infty,-\eta_k)$, decreasing $(-\eta_k,\eta_k)$ and increasing again on $(\eta_k,\infty)$. But it is clear that $f$ is negative on $[-\eta_k,\eta_k]$, hence $f$ has exactly one real root, which must be greater that $\eta_k$, and hence is positive.

It follows that $\det(A)$ is a product of the moduli of its non-real eigenvalues times its unique real, and necessarily positive, eigenvalue, and hence $\det(A)>0$ as required.

krm2233
  • 4,380
0

COMMENT.-The problem have correct sens only when the matrices are with entries belonging to an ordered field; we choose real numbers. It is difficult to have examples illustrating the problem. We examine the cas $k=3$ with matrices $2\times 2$ so we have $$A^3=A+I$$ which is equivalent to $$A(A^2-I)=I$$ In other words, $A$ should be invertible and having as inverse $A^2-I$.Because $$\det(A)\det(A^2-I)=1$$ $\det(A)$ and $\det(A^2-I)$ must have equal sign (could it be negative?).

If $A=\pmatrix{a&b\\c&d}$ then $$\begin{cases}\det(A^2-I)=a^2d^2+b^2c^2+1-(a^2+2abcd+2bc+d^2)\\\det(A)=ad-bc\end{cases}$$ I stop here. Anyone could try to find out an example or counterexample with this.

Piquito
  • 29,594
  • The case $k=3$ has already been treated here – Jean Marie Jan 20 '24 at 19:02
  • Yes I just saw this answer https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1108742/if-a3-ai-then-det-a0?noredirect=1&lq=1 – Sabrebar Jan 20 '24 at 19:37
  • I just indicated it in order for you to compare. But your idea to show that a result with a general value $n$ for the parameter should often be considered first with low values of $n$, is a good one and is not taught enough ! – Jean Marie Jan 21 '24 at 16:48
  • @Jean Marie: I have answered to your first comment but my message has been deleted because I greeted you in French. Regards. – Piquito Jan 23 '24 at 12:59
  • @Piquito It must be the reason ; I dislike this kind of censorship. – Jean Marie Jan 23 '24 at 17:42