$det(xA - B) = 0$ and diagonalization












6












$begingroup$


Let $A, B$ be two $3 times 3$ (complex) symmetric matrices and suppose the equation $det(xA - B) = 0$ has three distinct solutions. Prove that $A$ is invertible.



Any help appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What if $x=1, B=0$, so that one of the solutions states $det(A)=0$. Then $A$ is not invertible.
    $endgroup$
    – Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
    Jan 22 at 19:03










  • $begingroup$
    @Antonios-AlexandrosRobotis The matrices are symmetric, but not necessarily definite positive. Besides, you don't have the identity for all $x$...
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    Jan 22 at 19:04








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ViktorGlombik I imagine it is a scalar.
    $endgroup$
    – Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
    Jan 22 at 19:07






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Presumably the condition means that $det(xA-B)=0$ has exactly three distinct roots, otherwise the problem statement is false, as illustrated by the counterexample $A=B=0$ (where $det(xA-B)=0$ has infinitely many distinct roots). The symmetry assumption seems redundant here. By unitary triangulation, you may assume that $A$ is triangular. If $A$ is singular, then by the rule of Sarrus, $det(xA-B)=0$ is at most a quadratic equation and hence it cannot have exactly three distinct roots.
    $endgroup$
    – user1551
    Jan 22 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Levent It's a proof by contrapositive.
    $endgroup$
    – user1551
    Jan 23 at 12:27
















6












$begingroup$


Let $A, B$ be two $3 times 3$ (complex) symmetric matrices and suppose the equation $det(xA - B) = 0$ has three distinct solutions. Prove that $A$ is invertible.



Any help appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What if $x=1, B=0$, so that one of the solutions states $det(A)=0$. Then $A$ is not invertible.
    $endgroup$
    – Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
    Jan 22 at 19:03










  • $begingroup$
    @Antonios-AlexandrosRobotis The matrices are symmetric, but not necessarily definite positive. Besides, you don't have the identity for all $x$...
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    Jan 22 at 19:04








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ViktorGlombik I imagine it is a scalar.
    $endgroup$
    – Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
    Jan 22 at 19:07






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Presumably the condition means that $det(xA-B)=0$ has exactly three distinct roots, otherwise the problem statement is false, as illustrated by the counterexample $A=B=0$ (where $det(xA-B)=0$ has infinitely many distinct roots). The symmetry assumption seems redundant here. By unitary triangulation, you may assume that $A$ is triangular. If $A$ is singular, then by the rule of Sarrus, $det(xA-B)=0$ is at most a quadratic equation and hence it cannot have exactly three distinct roots.
    $endgroup$
    – user1551
    Jan 22 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Levent It's a proof by contrapositive.
    $endgroup$
    – user1551
    Jan 23 at 12:27














6












6








6


4



$begingroup$


Let $A, B$ be two $3 times 3$ (complex) symmetric matrices and suppose the equation $det(xA - B) = 0$ has three distinct solutions. Prove that $A$ is invertible.



Any help appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $A, B$ be two $3 times 3$ (complex) symmetric matrices and suppose the equation $det(xA - B) = 0$ has three distinct solutions. Prove that $A$ is invertible.



Any help appreciated!







linear-algebra matrices






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 25 at 23:14









Lee David Chung Lin

4,38031241




4,38031241










asked Jan 22 at 18:59









DesmondMilesDesmondMiles

11410




11410








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What if $x=1, B=0$, so that one of the solutions states $det(A)=0$. Then $A$ is not invertible.
    $endgroup$
    – Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
    Jan 22 at 19:03










  • $begingroup$
    @Antonios-AlexandrosRobotis The matrices are symmetric, but not necessarily definite positive. Besides, you don't have the identity for all $x$...
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    Jan 22 at 19:04








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ViktorGlombik I imagine it is a scalar.
    $endgroup$
    – Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
    Jan 22 at 19:07






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Presumably the condition means that $det(xA-B)=0$ has exactly three distinct roots, otherwise the problem statement is false, as illustrated by the counterexample $A=B=0$ (where $det(xA-B)=0$ has infinitely many distinct roots). The symmetry assumption seems redundant here. By unitary triangulation, you may assume that $A$ is triangular. If $A$ is singular, then by the rule of Sarrus, $det(xA-B)=0$ is at most a quadratic equation and hence it cannot have exactly three distinct roots.
    $endgroup$
    – user1551
    Jan 22 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Levent It's a proof by contrapositive.
    $endgroup$
    – user1551
    Jan 23 at 12:27














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What if $x=1, B=0$, so that one of the solutions states $det(A)=0$. Then $A$ is not invertible.
    $endgroup$
    – Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
    Jan 22 at 19:03










  • $begingroup$
    @Antonios-AlexandrosRobotis The matrices are symmetric, but not necessarily definite positive. Besides, you don't have the identity for all $x$...
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    Jan 22 at 19:04








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ViktorGlombik I imagine it is a scalar.
    $endgroup$
    – Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
    Jan 22 at 19:07






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Presumably the condition means that $det(xA-B)=0$ has exactly three distinct roots, otherwise the problem statement is false, as illustrated by the counterexample $A=B=0$ (where $det(xA-B)=0$ has infinitely many distinct roots). The symmetry assumption seems redundant here. By unitary triangulation, you may assume that $A$ is triangular. If $A$ is singular, then by the rule of Sarrus, $det(xA-B)=0$ is at most a quadratic equation and hence it cannot have exactly three distinct roots.
    $endgroup$
    – user1551
    Jan 22 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Levent It's a proof by contrapositive.
    $endgroup$
    – user1551
    Jan 23 at 12:27








3




3




$begingroup$
What if $x=1, B=0$, so that one of the solutions states $det(A)=0$. Then $A$ is not invertible.
$endgroup$
– Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
Jan 22 at 19:03




$begingroup$
What if $x=1, B=0$, so that one of the solutions states $det(A)=0$. Then $A$ is not invertible.
$endgroup$
– Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
Jan 22 at 19:03












$begingroup$
@Antonios-AlexandrosRobotis The matrices are symmetric, but not necessarily definite positive. Besides, you don't have the identity for all $x$...
$endgroup$
– Jose Brox
Jan 22 at 19:04






$begingroup$
@Antonios-AlexandrosRobotis The matrices are symmetric, but not necessarily definite positive. Besides, you don't have the identity for all $x$...
$endgroup$
– Jose Brox
Jan 22 at 19:04






1




1




$begingroup$
@ViktorGlombik I imagine it is a scalar.
$endgroup$
– Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
Jan 22 at 19:07




$begingroup$
@ViktorGlombik I imagine it is a scalar.
$endgroup$
– Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
Jan 22 at 19:07




2




2




$begingroup$
Presumably the condition means that $det(xA-B)=0$ has exactly three distinct roots, otherwise the problem statement is false, as illustrated by the counterexample $A=B=0$ (where $det(xA-B)=0$ has infinitely many distinct roots). The symmetry assumption seems redundant here. By unitary triangulation, you may assume that $A$ is triangular. If $A$ is singular, then by the rule of Sarrus, $det(xA-B)=0$ is at most a quadratic equation and hence it cannot have exactly three distinct roots.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 22 at 21:07




$begingroup$
Presumably the condition means that $det(xA-B)=0$ has exactly three distinct roots, otherwise the problem statement is false, as illustrated by the counterexample $A=B=0$ (where $det(xA-B)=0$ has infinitely many distinct roots). The symmetry assumption seems redundant here. By unitary triangulation, you may assume that $A$ is triangular. If $A$ is singular, then by the rule of Sarrus, $det(xA-B)=0$ is at most a quadratic equation and hence it cannot have exactly three distinct roots.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 22 at 21:07




1




1




$begingroup$
@Levent It's a proof by contrapositive.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 23 at 12:27




$begingroup$
@Levent It's a proof by contrapositive.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 23 at 12:27










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Since @user1551 didn't submit an answer, I'm giving one that is inspired on his comment. Nice one!



For starters the matrices do not have to be symmetric. They do not have to be of size $3times 3$ either, but can be of arbitrary size $n times n$. We do require that there are exactly $n$ distinct solutions, because otherwise $A=B=0$ is a counter example.



Let $A=USigma V^*$ be a singular value decomposition (SVD) of matrix $A$, which is guaranteed to exist for any complex matrix $A$. Then $U$ and $V$ are unitary matrices and $Sigma$ is a diagonal matrix of the singular values.



It follows that:
$$det(xA-B)=det(xUSigma V^*-B)=det(U(xSigma-U^*BV)V^*)=det(xSigma-U^*BV)$$



Suppose $A$ is singular. Then the diagonal matrix $Sigma$ has a $0$ on its diagonal. Consequently $(xSigma-U^*BV)$ has a row that does not contain $x$. When we apply the Laplace expansion to calculate it, we find that the resulting determinant cannot be of the maximum degree. Therefore there cannot be exactly $n$ distinct solutions.



Thus $A$ cannot be singular and must therefore be invertible.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    isn't the rule of sarrus limited to $3times 3$ matrices
    $endgroup$
    – Nathanael Skrepek
    Jan 25 at 20:21










  • $begingroup$
    Instead of Sarrus, which only holds for $3times3$ matrices, you can invoke Laplace expansion.
    $endgroup$
    – egreg
    Jan 25 at 21:23










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. Fixed now.
    $endgroup$
    – I like Serena
    Jan 26 at 8:40



















0












$begingroup$

Firstly, if $A$ and $B$ are linearly dependent, i.e. $B=lambda A$ for some $lambda$ then we have $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$ which does not have three distinct solutions. Hence $A$ and $B$ are linearly independent.



Let $V=langle A,Brangle$ be the plane spanned by $A$ and $B$. Passing to the projectivization of $mathbb{C}^{3times 3}$, $V$ becomes a line, say $L$. Since the equation has three distinct solution, $V$ contains at least $3$ lines on which every matrix is singular (namely, the lines $mathbb{C}cdot (lambda_i A-B)$, $1leq ileq 3$ for each solution of the equation). Thus, in projective space, $L$ and the degree $3$ hyper surface of singular matrices intersect in at least three points. Since the hyper surface is of degree $3$, they intersect in exactly $3$ points. Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible.



It is possible that I am using some facts that you are not familiar with, in this case you can just comment so I can edit the answer.



Edit : I consider the hyper surface of singular matrices, i.e. the hyper surface defined by $det=0$ in the $8$-dimensional projective space of $3times 3$-matrices. The degree of a hyper surface is given by the degree of the defining polynomial, in this case it is $3$. Now, for a line and a hyper surface in projective space, there are $2$ possibilities, either the line is contained in the hyper surface or they have at most the degree of the hyper surface many intersection points. The line is not contained in the hyper surface in this case since otherwise for all $xinmathbb{C}$ we would have $det(xA-B)=0$. Then we pass to the case where there are at most $3$ intersection points. We already know that there are $3$ intersection points given by the solutions to $det(xA-B)=0$, so three points, all of the form $xA-B$. Now the points on the line spanned by $A,B$ are either of the form $xA-B$ for some $xinmathbb{C}$ or $A$ (any point on the line is of the form $[xA+yB]inmathbb{P}^8$ for some $x,yinmathbb{C}$. All points where $yneq 0$ can be parametrized by $xA-B, xinmathbb{C}$ and there is only one point where $y=0$, which is $A$).



Edit 2 : I would like to point out that this solution immediately generalises to $ntimes n$ case by simply putting $n$ instead of $3$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Firstly, shouldn't it be $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$? The conclusion drawn for $A$ and $B$ stays the same. (2) What does "degree of the hypersurface" mean, and why is this degree equal to 3? (3) I do not understand how "Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible." follows from the preceding argumentation. Could you explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Hanno
    Jan 27 at 10:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Hanno yes, it should be $(x-lambda)^3$, thanks for pointing it out. For the rest, I edited the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Levent
    Jan 29 at 9:38











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3083559%2fdetxa-b-0-and-diagonalization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

Since @user1551 didn't submit an answer, I'm giving one that is inspired on his comment. Nice one!



For starters the matrices do not have to be symmetric. They do not have to be of size $3times 3$ either, but can be of arbitrary size $n times n$. We do require that there are exactly $n$ distinct solutions, because otherwise $A=B=0$ is a counter example.



Let $A=USigma V^*$ be a singular value decomposition (SVD) of matrix $A$, which is guaranteed to exist for any complex matrix $A$. Then $U$ and $V$ are unitary matrices and $Sigma$ is a diagonal matrix of the singular values.



It follows that:
$$det(xA-B)=det(xUSigma V^*-B)=det(U(xSigma-U^*BV)V^*)=det(xSigma-U^*BV)$$



Suppose $A$ is singular. Then the diagonal matrix $Sigma$ has a $0$ on its diagonal. Consequently $(xSigma-U^*BV)$ has a row that does not contain $x$. When we apply the Laplace expansion to calculate it, we find that the resulting determinant cannot be of the maximum degree. Therefore there cannot be exactly $n$ distinct solutions.



Thus $A$ cannot be singular and must therefore be invertible.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    isn't the rule of sarrus limited to $3times 3$ matrices
    $endgroup$
    – Nathanael Skrepek
    Jan 25 at 20:21










  • $begingroup$
    Instead of Sarrus, which only holds for $3times3$ matrices, you can invoke Laplace expansion.
    $endgroup$
    – egreg
    Jan 25 at 21:23










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. Fixed now.
    $endgroup$
    – I like Serena
    Jan 26 at 8:40
















1












$begingroup$

Since @user1551 didn't submit an answer, I'm giving one that is inspired on his comment. Nice one!



For starters the matrices do not have to be symmetric. They do not have to be of size $3times 3$ either, but can be of arbitrary size $n times n$. We do require that there are exactly $n$ distinct solutions, because otherwise $A=B=0$ is a counter example.



Let $A=USigma V^*$ be a singular value decomposition (SVD) of matrix $A$, which is guaranteed to exist for any complex matrix $A$. Then $U$ and $V$ are unitary matrices and $Sigma$ is a diagonal matrix of the singular values.



It follows that:
$$det(xA-B)=det(xUSigma V^*-B)=det(U(xSigma-U^*BV)V^*)=det(xSigma-U^*BV)$$



Suppose $A$ is singular. Then the diagonal matrix $Sigma$ has a $0$ on its diagonal. Consequently $(xSigma-U^*BV)$ has a row that does not contain $x$. When we apply the Laplace expansion to calculate it, we find that the resulting determinant cannot be of the maximum degree. Therefore there cannot be exactly $n$ distinct solutions.



Thus $A$ cannot be singular and must therefore be invertible.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    isn't the rule of sarrus limited to $3times 3$ matrices
    $endgroup$
    – Nathanael Skrepek
    Jan 25 at 20:21










  • $begingroup$
    Instead of Sarrus, which only holds for $3times3$ matrices, you can invoke Laplace expansion.
    $endgroup$
    – egreg
    Jan 25 at 21:23










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. Fixed now.
    $endgroup$
    – I like Serena
    Jan 26 at 8:40














1












1








1





$begingroup$

Since @user1551 didn't submit an answer, I'm giving one that is inspired on his comment. Nice one!



For starters the matrices do not have to be symmetric. They do not have to be of size $3times 3$ either, but can be of arbitrary size $n times n$. We do require that there are exactly $n$ distinct solutions, because otherwise $A=B=0$ is a counter example.



Let $A=USigma V^*$ be a singular value decomposition (SVD) of matrix $A$, which is guaranteed to exist for any complex matrix $A$. Then $U$ and $V$ are unitary matrices and $Sigma$ is a diagonal matrix of the singular values.



It follows that:
$$det(xA-B)=det(xUSigma V^*-B)=det(U(xSigma-U^*BV)V^*)=det(xSigma-U^*BV)$$



Suppose $A$ is singular. Then the diagonal matrix $Sigma$ has a $0$ on its diagonal. Consequently $(xSigma-U^*BV)$ has a row that does not contain $x$. When we apply the Laplace expansion to calculate it, we find that the resulting determinant cannot be of the maximum degree. Therefore there cannot be exactly $n$ distinct solutions.



Thus $A$ cannot be singular and must therefore be invertible.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Since @user1551 didn't submit an answer, I'm giving one that is inspired on his comment. Nice one!



For starters the matrices do not have to be symmetric. They do not have to be of size $3times 3$ either, but can be of arbitrary size $n times n$. We do require that there are exactly $n$ distinct solutions, because otherwise $A=B=0$ is a counter example.



Let $A=USigma V^*$ be a singular value decomposition (SVD) of matrix $A$, which is guaranteed to exist for any complex matrix $A$. Then $U$ and $V$ are unitary matrices and $Sigma$ is a diagonal matrix of the singular values.



It follows that:
$$det(xA-B)=det(xUSigma V^*-B)=det(U(xSigma-U^*BV)V^*)=det(xSigma-U^*BV)$$



Suppose $A$ is singular. Then the diagonal matrix $Sigma$ has a $0$ on its diagonal. Consequently $(xSigma-U^*BV)$ has a row that does not contain $x$. When we apply the Laplace expansion to calculate it, we find that the resulting determinant cannot be of the maximum degree. Therefore there cannot be exactly $n$ distinct solutions.



Thus $A$ cannot be singular and must therefore be invertible.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 26 at 8:40

























answered Jan 25 at 20:12









I like SerenaI like Serena

4,2221722




4,2221722












  • $begingroup$
    isn't the rule of sarrus limited to $3times 3$ matrices
    $endgroup$
    – Nathanael Skrepek
    Jan 25 at 20:21










  • $begingroup$
    Instead of Sarrus, which only holds for $3times3$ matrices, you can invoke Laplace expansion.
    $endgroup$
    – egreg
    Jan 25 at 21:23










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. Fixed now.
    $endgroup$
    – I like Serena
    Jan 26 at 8:40


















  • $begingroup$
    isn't the rule of sarrus limited to $3times 3$ matrices
    $endgroup$
    – Nathanael Skrepek
    Jan 25 at 20:21










  • $begingroup$
    Instead of Sarrus, which only holds for $3times3$ matrices, you can invoke Laplace expansion.
    $endgroup$
    – egreg
    Jan 25 at 21:23










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. Fixed now.
    $endgroup$
    – I like Serena
    Jan 26 at 8:40
















$begingroup$
isn't the rule of sarrus limited to $3times 3$ matrices
$endgroup$
– Nathanael Skrepek
Jan 25 at 20:21




$begingroup$
isn't the rule of sarrus limited to $3times 3$ matrices
$endgroup$
– Nathanael Skrepek
Jan 25 at 20:21












$begingroup$
Instead of Sarrus, which only holds for $3times3$ matrices, you can invoke Laplace expansion.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Jan 25 at 21:23




$begingroup$
Instead of Sarrus, which only holds for $3times3$ matrices, you can invoke Laplace expansion.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Jan 25 at 21:23












$begingroup$
Thanks. Fixed now.
$endgroup$
– I like Serena
Jan 26 at 8:40




$begingroup$
Thanks. Fixed now.
$endgroup$
– I like Serena
Jan 26 at 8:40











0












$begingroup$

Firstly, if $A$ and $B$ are linearly dependent, i.e. $B=lambda A$ for some $lambda$ then we have $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$ which does not have three distinct solutions. Hence $A$ and $B$ are linearly independent.



Let $V=langle A,Brangle$ be the plane spanned by $A$ and $B$. Passing to the projectivization of $mathbb{C}^{3times 3}$, $V$ becomes a line, say $L$. Since the equation has three distinct solution, $V$ contains at least $3$ lines on which every matrix is singular (namely, the lines $mathbb{C}cdot (lambda_i A-B)$, $1leq ileq 3$ for each solution of the equation). Thus, in projective space, $L$ and the degree $3$ hyper surface of singular matrices intersect in at least three points. Since the hyper surface is of degree $3$, they intersect in exactly $3$ points. Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible.



It is possible that I am using some facts that you are not familiar with, in this case you can just comment so I can edit the answer.



Edit : I consider the hyper surface of singular matrices, i.e. the hyper surface defined by $det=0$ in the $8$-dimensional projective space of $3times 3$-matrices. The degree of a hyper surface is given by the degree of the defining polynomial, in this case it is $3$. Now, for a line and a hyper surface in projective space, there are $2$ possibilities, either the line is contained in the hyper surface or they have at most the degree of the hyper surface many intersection points. The line is not contained in the hyper surface in this case since otherwise for all $xinmathbb{C}$ we would have $det(xA-B)=0$. Then we pass to the case where there are at most $3$ intersection points. We already know that there are $3$ intersection points given by the solutions to $det(xA-B)=0$, so three points, all of the form $xA-B$. Now the points on the line spanned by $A,B$ are either of the form $xA-B$ for some $xinmathbb{C}$ or $A$ (any point on the line is of the form $[xA+yB]inmathbb{P}^8$ for some $x,yinmathbb{C}$. All points where $yneq 0$ can be parametrized by $xA-B, xinmathbb{C}$ and there is only one point where $y=0$, which is $A$).



Edit 2 : I would like to point out that this solution immediately generalises to $ntimes n$ case by simply putting $n$ instead of $3$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Firstly, shouldn't it be $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$? The conclusion drawn for $A$ and $B$ stays the same. (2) What does "degree of the hypersurface" mean, and why is this degree equal to 3? (3) I do not understand how "Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible." follows from the preceding argumentation. Could you explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Hanno
    Jan 27 at 10:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Hanno yes, it should be $(x-lambda)^3$, thanks for pointing it out. For the rest, I edited the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Levent
    Jan 29 at 9:38
















0












$begingroup$

Firstly, if $A$ and $B$ are linearly dependent, i.e. $B=lambda A$ for some $lambda$ then we have $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$ which does not have three distinct solutions. Hence $A$ and $B$ are linearly independent.



Let $V=langle A,Brangle$ be the plane spanned by $A$ and $B$. Passing to the projectivization of $mathbb{C}^{3times 3}$, $V$ becomes a line, say $L$. Since the equation has three distinct solution, $V$ contains at least $3$ lines on which every matrix is singular (namely, the lines $mathbb{C}cdot (lambda_i A-B)$, $1leq ileq 3$ for each solution of the equation). Thus, in projective space, $L$ and the degree $3$ hyper surface of singular matrices intersect in at least three points. Since the hyper surface is of degree $3$, they intersect in exactly $3$ points. Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible.



It is possible that I am using some facts that you are not familiar with, in this case you can just comment so I can edit the answer.



Edit : I consider the hyper surface of singular matrices, i.e. the hyper surface defined by $det=0$ in the $8$-dimensional projective space of $3times 3$-matrices. The degree of a hyper surface is given by the degree of the defining polynomial, in this case it is $3$. Now, for a line and a hyper surface in projective space, there are $2$ possibilities, either the line is contained in the hyper surface or they have at most the degree of the hyper surface many intersection points. The line is not contained in the hyper surface in this case since otherwise for all $xinmathbb{C}$ we would have $det(xA-B)=0$. Then we pass to the case where there are at most $3$ intersection points. We already know that there are $3$ intersection points given by the solutions to $det(xA-B)=0$, so three points, all of the form $xA-B$. Now the points on the line spanned by $A,B$ are either of the form $xA-B$ for some $xinmathbb{C}$ or $A$ (any point on the line is of the form $[xA+yB]inmathbb{P}^8$ for some $x,yinmathbb{C}$. All points where $yneq 0$ can be parametrized by $xA-B, xinmathbb{C}$ and there is only one point where $y=0$, which is $A$).



Edit 2 : I would like to point out that this solution immediately generalises to $ntimes n$ case by simply putting $n$ instead of $3$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Firstly, shouldn't it be $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$? The conclusion drawn for $A$ and $B$ stays the same. (2) What does "degree of the hypersurface" mean, and why is this degree equal to 3? (3) I do not understand how "Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible." follows from the preceding argumentation. Could you explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Hanno
    Jan 27 at 10:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Hanno yes, it should be $(x-lambda)^3$, thanks for pointing it out. For the rest, I edited the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Levent
    Jan 29 at 9:38














0












0








0





$begingroup$

Firstly, if $A$ and $B$ are linearly dependent, i.e. $B=lambda A$ for some $lambda$ then we have $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$ which does not have three distinct solutions. Hence $A$ and $B$ are linearly independent.



Let $V=langle A,Brangle$ be the plane spanned by $A$ and $B$. Passing to the projectivization of $mathbb{C}^{3times 3}$, $V$ becomes a line, say $L$. Since the equation has three distinct solution, $V$ contains at least $3$ lines on which every matrix is singular (namely, the lines $mathbb{C}cdot (lambda_i A-B)$, $1leq ileq 3$ for each solution of the equation). Thus, in projective space, $L$ and the degree $3$ hyper surface of singular matrices intersect in at least three points. Since the hyper surface is of degree $3$, they intersect in exactly $3$ points. Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible.



It is possible that I am using some facts that you are not familiar with, in this case you can just comment so I can edit the answer.



Edit : I consider the hyper surface of singular matrices, i.e. the hyper surface defined by $det=0$ in the $8$-dimensional projective space of $3times 3$-matrices. The degree of a hyper surface is given by the degree of the defining polynomial, in this case it is $3$. Now, for a line and a hyper surface in projective space, there are $2$ possibilities, either the line is contained in the hyper surface or they have at most the degree of the hyper surface many intersection points. The line is not contained in the hyper surface in this case since otherwise for all $xinmathbb{C}$ we would have $det(xA-B)=0$. Then we pass to the case where there are at most $3$ intersection points. We already know that there are $3$ intersection points given by the solutions to $det(xA-B)=0$, so three points, all of the form $xA-B$. Now the points on the line spanned by $A,B$ are either of the form $xA-B$ for some $xinmathbb{C}$ or $A$ (any point on the line is of the form $[xA+yB]inmathbb{P}^8$ for some $x,yinmathbb{C}$. All points where $yneq 0$ can be parametrized by $xA-B, xinmathbb{C}$ and there is only one point where $y=0$, which is $A$).



Edit 2 : I would like to point out that this solution immediately generalises to $ntimes n$ case by simply putting $n$ instead of $3$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Firstly, if $A$ and $B$ are linearly dependent, i.e. $B=lambda A$ for some $lambda$ then we have $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$ which does not have three distinct solutions. Hence $A$ and $B$ are linearly independent.



Let $V=langle A,Brangle$ be the plane spanned by $A$ and $B$. Passing to the projectivization of $mathbb{C}^{3times 3}$, $V$ becomes a line, say $L$. Since the equation has three distinct solution, $V$ contains at least $3$ lines on which every matrix is singular (namely, the lines $mathbb{C}cdot (lambda_i A-B)$, $1leq ileq 3$ for each solution of the equation). Thus, in projective space, $L$ and the degree $3$ hyper surface of singular matrices intersect in at least three points. Since the hyper surface is of degree $3$, they intersect in exactly $3$ points. Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible.



It is possible that I am using some facts that you are not familiar with, in this case you can just comment so I can edit the answer.



Edit : I consider the hyper surface of singular matrices, i.e. the hyper surface defined by $det=0$ in the $8$-dimensional projective space of $3times 3$-matrices. The degree of a hyper surface is given by the degree of the defining polynomial, in this case it is $3$. Now, for a line and a hyper surface in projective space, there are $2$ possibilities, either the line is contained in the hyper surface or they have at most the degree of the hyper surface many intersection points. The line is not contained in the hyper surface in this case since otherwise for all $xinmathbb{C}$ we would have $det(xA-B)=0$. Then we pass to the case where there are at most $3$ intersection points. We already know that there are $3$ intersection points given by the solutions to $det(xA-B)=0$, so three points, all of the form $xA-B$. Now the points on the line spanned by $A,B$ are either of the form $xA-B$ for some $xinmathbb{C}$ or $A$ (any point on the line is of the form $[xA+yB]inmathbb{P}^8$ for some $x,yinmathbb{C}$. All points where $yneq 0$ can be parametrized by $xA-B, xinmathbb{C}$ and there is only one point where $y=0$, which is $A$).



Edit 2 : I would like to point out that this solution immediately generalises to $ntimes n$ case by simply putting $n$ instead of $3$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 30 at 23:55

























answered Jan 22 at 19:41









LeventLevent

2,729925




2,729925












  • $begingroup$
    Firstly, shouldn't it be $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$? The conclusion drawn for $A$ and $B$ stays the same. (2) What does "degree of the hypersurface" mean, and why is this degree equal to 3? (3) I do not understand how "Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible." follows from the preceding argumentation. Could you explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Hanno
    Jan 27 at 10:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Hanno yes, it should be $(x-lambda)^3$, thanks for pointing it out. For the rest, I edited the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Levent
    Jan 29 at 9:38


















  • $begingroup$
    Firstly, shouldn't it be $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$? The conclusion drawn for $A$ and $B$ stays the same. (2) What does "degree of the hypersurface" mean, and why is this degree equal to 3? (3) I do not understand how "Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible." follows from the preceding argumentation. Could you explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Hanno
    Jan 27 at 10:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Hanno yes, it should be $(x-lambda)^3$, thanks for pointing it out. For the rest, I edited the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Levent
    Jan 29 at 9:38
















$begingroup$
Firstly, shouldn't it be $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$? The conclusion drawn for $A$ and $B$ stays the same. (2) What does "degree of the hypersurface" mean, and why is this degree equal to 3? (3) I do not understand how "Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible." follows from the preceding argumentation. Could you explain?
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 27 at 10:59




$begingroup$
Firstly, shouldn't it be $det (xA- B)=(x-lambda)^3det A$? The conclusion drawn for $A$ and $B$ stays the same. (2) What does "degree of the hypersurface" mean, and why is this degree equal to 3? (3) I do not understand how "Since $A$ is not of the form $xA-B$ for any $x$, $A$ is necessarily invertible." follows from the preceding argumentation. Could you explain?
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 27 at 10:59












$begingroup$
@Hanno yes, it should be $(x-lambda)^3$, thanks for pointing it out. For the rest, I edited the answer.
$endgroup$
– Levent
Jan 29 at 9:38




$begingroup$
@Hanno yes, it should be $(x-lambda)^3$, thanks for pointing it out. For the rest, I edited the answer.
$endgroup$
– Levent
Jan 29 at 9:38


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3083559%2fdetxa-b-0-and-diagonalization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Mario Kart Wii

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

Antonio Litta Visconti Arese