If $,operatorname{trace}(C) = 0; $ then there exist matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $AB - BA =C$












2












$begingroup$


If $c_{11} + c_{22}=0$ then there exist matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $AB - BA =C$, where
$$C = begin{pmatrix} c_{11} & c_{12} \ c_{21} & c_{22} end{pmatrix}.$$



I cannot understand where to start. This question is from Linear Algebra by Hoffman & Kunje. I thought this problem would be on this site, but I could not find it.



Can anyone give me a hint?



I really could not understand the answer to this question here.



I have two questions:



1) Is the statement true for any Square Matrix?



2) Is there any easy way to prove it for the matrix of order $2 times 2$?






linear-algebra matrices vector-spaces







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The question you link states that this is true for any square matrix, if you take $c_{11}+c_{22}=0$ to mean $operatorname{Tr}(C)=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Jan 9 at 17:00










  • $begingroup$
    Can you give any hint ?@Servaes
    $endgroup$
    – cmi
    Jan 9 at 17:43






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In the specific case of $2times 2$ matrices, if $C$ has trace 0 then by Jordan normal form, $C$ must be similar either to $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 0 \ 0 & -lambda end{bmatrix}$ or to $begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. Or, in case the scalar field has characteristic 2, then $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 1 \ 0 & lambda end{bmatrix}$ is also a possibility.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Schepler
    Jan 9 at 18:12






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It might very well be that we can help you understand the previous Accepted Answer ("make" is perhaps too strong a word), but Readers will need to have you explain where you got stuck following that Answer. In other words, let's break down the "gap" in understanding so that any new explanation can be precisely directed to assist you.
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Jan 10 at 5:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hardmath I agree with you. I think that the difficulty that the OP has to "understand the answer math.stackexchange.com/q/1045396 (that I will name Q hereafter) is well understandable because it was erroneous (see the comment I posted yesterday to the answer to A). This said, I didn't see a way to be didactic with the OP by exploiting A. I saw another direct explicit way that I wrote down ; in other cases, I try not to give a complete solution at once.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 10 at 8:53


















2












$begingroup$


If $c_{11} + c_{22}=0$ then there exist matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $AB - BA =C$, where
$$C = begin{pmatrix} c_{11} & c_{12} \ c_{21} & c_{22} end{pmatrix}.$$



I cannot understand where to start. This question is from Linear Algebra by Hoffman & Kunje. I thought this problem would be on this site, but I could not find it.



Can anyone give me a hint?



I really could not understand the answer to this question here.



I have two questions:



1) Is the statement true for any Square Matrix?



2) Is there any easy way to prove it for the matrix of order $2 times 2$?






linear-algebra matrices vector-spaces







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The question you link states that this is true for any square matrix, if you take $c_{11}+c_{22}=0$ to mean $operatorname{Tr}(C)=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Jan 9 at 17:00










  • $begingroup$
    Can you give any hint ?@Servaes
    $endgroup$
    – cmi
    Jan 9 at 17:43






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In the specific case of $2times 2$ matrices, if $C$ has trace 0 then by Jordan normal form, $C$ must be similar either to $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 0 \ 0 & -lambda end{bmatrix}$ or to $begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. Or, in case the scalar field has characteristic 2, then $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 1 \ 0 & lambda end{bmatrix}$ is also a possibility.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Schepler
    Jan 9 at 18:12






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It might very well be that we can help you understand the previous Accepted Answer ("make" is perhaps too strong a word), but Readers will need to have you explain where you got stuck following that Answer. In other words, let's break down the "gap" in understanding so that any new explanation can be precisely directed to assist you.
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Jan 10 at 5:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hardmath I agree with you. I think that the difficulty that the OP has to "understand the answer math.stackexchange.com/q/1045396 (that I will name Q hereafter) is well understandable because it was erroneous (see the comment I posted yesterday to the answer to A). This said, I didn't see a way to be didactic with the OP by exploiting A. I saw another direct explicit way that I wrote down ; in other cases, I try not to give a complete solution at once.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 10 at 8:53
















2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


If $c_{11} + c_{22}=0$ then there exist matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $AB - BA =C$, where
$$C = begin{pmatrix} c_{11} & c_{12} \ c_{21} & c_{22} end{pmatrix}.$$



I cannot understand where to start. This question is from Linear Algebra by Hoffman & Kunje. I thought this problem would be on this site, but I could not find it.



Can anyone give me a hint?



I really could not understand the answer to this question here.



I have two questions:



1) Is the statement true for any Square Matrix?



2) Is there any easy way to prove it for the matrix of order $2 times 2$?






linear-algebra matrices vector-spaces







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




If $c_{11} + c_{22}=0$ then there exist matrices $A$ and $B$ such that $AB - BA =C$, where
$$C = begin{pmatrix} c_{11} & c_{12} \ c_{21} & c_{22} end{pmatrix}.$$



I cannot understand where to start. This question is from Linear Algebra by Hoffman & Kunje. I thought this problem would be on this site, but I could not find it.



Can anyone give me a hint?



I really could not understand the answer to this question here.



I have two questions:



1) Is the statement true for any Square Matrix?



2) Is there any easy way to prove it for the matrix of order $2 times 2$?






linear-algebra matrices vector-spaces




linear-algebra matrices vector-spaces






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 9 at 19:27









the_fox

2,58711533




2,58711533










asked Jan 9 at 16:46









cmicmi

1,109212




1,109212








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The question you link states that this is true for any square matrix, if you take $c_{11}+c_{22}=0$ to mean $operatorname{Tr}(C)=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Jan 9 at 17:00










  • $begingroup$
    Can you give any hint ?@Servaes
    $endgroup$
    – cmi
    Jan 9 at 17:43






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In the specific case of $2times 2$ matrices, if $C$ has trace 0 then by Jordan normal form, $C$ must be similar either to $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 0 \ 0 & -lambda end{bmatrix}$ or to $begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. Or, in case the scalar field has characteristic 2, then $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 1 \ 0 & lambda end{bmatrix}$ is also a possibility.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Schepler
    Jan 9 at 18:12






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It might very well be that we can help you understand the previous Accepted Answer ("make" is perhaps too strong a word), but Readers will need to have you explain where you got stuck following that Answer. In other words, let's break down the "gap" in understanding so that any new explanation can be precisely directed to assist you.
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Jan 10 at 5:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hardmath I agree with you. I think that the difficulty that the OP has to "understand the answer math.stackexchange.com/q/1045396 (that I will name Q hereafter) is well understandable because it was erroneous (see the comment I posted yesterday to the answer to A). This said, I didn't see a way to be didactic with the OP by exploiting A. I saw another direct explicit way that I wrote down ; in other cases, I try not to give a complete solution at once.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 10 at 8:53
















  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The question you link states that this is true for any square matrix, if you take $c_{11}+c_{22}=0$ to mean $operatorname{Tr}(C)=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Jan 9 at 17:00










  • $begingroup$
    Can you give any hint ?@Servaes
    $endgroup$
    – cmi
    Jan 9 at 17:43






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In the specific case of $2times 2$ matrices, if $C$ has trace 0 then by Jordan normal form, $C$ must be similar either to $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 0 \ 0 & -lambda end{bmatrix}$ or to $begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. Or, in case the scalar field has characteristic 2, then $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 1 \ 0 & lambda end{bmatrix}$ is also a possibility.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Schepler
    Jan 9 at 18:12






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It might very well be that we can help you understand the previous Accepted Answer ("make" is perhaps too strong a word), but Readers will need to have you explain where you got stuck following that Answer. In other words, let's break down the "gap" in understanding so that any new explanation can be precisely directed to assist you.
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Jan 10 at 5:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hardmath I agree with you. I think that the difficulty that the OP has to "understand the answer math.stackexchange.com/q/1045396 (that I will name Q hereafter) is well understandable because it was erroneous (see the comment I posted yesterday to the answer to A). This said, I didn't see a way to be didactic with the OP by exploiting A. I saw another direct explicit way that I wrote down ; in other cases, I try not to give a complete solution at once.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Jan 10 at 8:53










2




2




$begingroup$
The question you link states that this is true for any square matrix, if you take $c_{11}+c_{22}=0$ to mean $operatorname{Tr}(C)=0$.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
Jan 9 at 17:00




$begingroup$
The question you link states that this is true for any square matrix, if you take $c_{11}+c_{22}=0$ to mean $operatorname{Tr}(C)=0$.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
Jan 9 at 17:00












$begingroup$
Can you give any hint ?@Servaes
$endgroup$
– cmi
Jan 9 at 17:43




$begingroup$
Can you give any hint ?@Servaes
$endgroup$
– cmi
Jan 9 at 17:43




2




2




$begingroup$
In the specific case of $2times 2$ matrices, if $C$ has trace 0 then by Jordan normal form, $C$ must be similar either to $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 0 \ 0 & -lambda end{bmatrix}$ or to $begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. Or, in case the scalar field has characteristic 2, then $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 1 \ 0 & lambda end{bmatrix}$ is also a possibility.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Schepler
Jan 9 at 18:12




$begingroup$
In the specific case of $2times 2$ matrices, if $C$ has trace 0 then by Jordan normal form, $C$ must be similar either to $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 0 \ 0 & -lambda end{bmatrix}$ or to $begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. Or, in case the scalar field has characteristic 2, then $begin{bmatrix} lambda & 1 \ 0 & lambda end{bmatrix}$ is also a possibility.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Schepler
Jan 9 at 18:12




2




2




$begingroup$
It might very well be that we can help you understand the previous Accepted Answer ("make" is perhaps too strong a word), but Readers will need to have you explain where you got stuck following that Answer. In other words, let's break down the "gap" in understanding so that any new explanation can be precisely directed to assist you.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Jan 10 at 5:45




$begingroup$
It might very well be that we can help you understand the previous Accepted Answer ("make" is perhaps too strong a word), but Readers will need to have you explain where you got stuck following that Answer. In other words, let's break down the "gap" in understanding so that any new explanation can be precisely directed to assist you.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Jan 10 at 5:45




1




1




$begingroup$
@hardmath I agree with you. I think that the difficulty that the OP has to "understand the answer math.stackexchange.com/q/1045396 (that I will name Q hereafter) is well understandable because it was erroneous (see the comment I posted yesterday to the answer to A). This said, I didn't see a way to be didactic with the OP by exploiting A. I saw another direct explicit way that I wrote down ; in other cases, I try not to give a complete solution at once.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 10 at 8:53






$begingroup$
@hardmath I agree with you. I think that the difficulty that the OP has to "understand the answer math.stackexchange.com/q/1045396 (that I will name Q hereafter) is well understandable because it was erroneous (see the comment I posted yesterday to the answer to A). This said, I didn't see a way to be didactic with the OP by exploiting A. I saw another direct explicit way that I wrote down ; in other cases, I try not to give a complete solution at once.
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jan 10 at 8:53












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

The issue is to give explicit solutions $(A,B)$ to relationship :



$$AB-BA=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}p & q\
r& -pend{pmatrix}}_Ctag{1}$$



We are going to consider 3 cases, from the most general to the most particular.




  • Let us assume first $p neq 0$. Relationship (1) is verified by taking :


$$A:=begin{pmatrix}0& p\
0 & r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
B:=begin{pmatrix}0&0\
1 & q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{2}$$




  • Let us now consider the case $p=0$ that we divide into 2 subcases :


  • Case $p=0$ and $r neq -q$ : it suffices to take :



$$A:=tfrac{1}{2(q+r)}begin{pmatrix}r& -q\
r& -qend{pmatrix} text{and}
B:=begin{pmatrix} q& q\
-r&-rend{pmatrix}tag{3}$$



to get $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix}0 & q\
r& 0end{pmatrix}.$$




  • Case $p=0$ and $r=-q$ : take :
    $$A:=begin{pmatrix}1& 1\
    1 & 0\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
    B:=begin{pmatrix}0&q\
    q & 0end{pmatrix}.tag{4}$$
    giving


$$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix} 0& q\
-q & 0\ end{pmatrix} .$$




Remark about the degrees of freedom we have for (2), (3) and (4) :
Out of relationship (2) for example (the same is true for (3) and (4)), it is possible to generate a lot of other solutions to (1). For example by taking, for any $a$ and any $b$ :



$$A:=begin{pmatrix}a& p\
0 & a+r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
B:=begin{pmatrix}b&0\
1 & b+q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{5}$$



The idea behind (5) is in fact very natural : if in (1), for a given $C$, we have a solution $(A,B)$, then, for any $k$, $(A,B+kI_2)$ is as well a solution because we still have



$$A(B+kI_2)-(B+kI_2)A = C.$$



(and $(A+k'I_2,B)$ as well) i.e., we can add a multiple of the identity matrix, to any of the solution matrices without changing the result. More generally, we can add to $B$ any polynomial $p(A)$ in $A$ :



$$A(B+p(A))-(B+p(A))A = C,$$



and, of course, to $A$ any polynomial in $B$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    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%2f3067683%2fif-operatornametracec-0-then-there-exist-matrices-a-and-b-such%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    The issue is to give explicit solutions $(A,B)$ to relationship :



    $$AB-BA=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}p & q\
    r& -pend{pmatrix}}_Ctag{1}$$



    We are going to consider 3 cases, from the most general to the most particular.




    • Let us assume first $p neq 0$. Relationship (1) is verified by taking :


    $$A:=begin{pmatrix}0& p\
    0 & r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
    B:=begin{pmatrix}0&0\
    1 & q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{2}$$




    • Let us now consider the case $p=0$ that we divide into 2 subcases :


    • Case $p=0$ and $r neq -q$ : it suffices to take :



    $$A:=tfrac{1}{2(q+r)}begin{pmatrix}r& -q\
    r& -qend{pmatrix} text{and}
    B:=begin{pmatrix} q& q\
    -r&-rend{pmatrix}tag{3}$$



    to get $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix}0 & q\
    r& 0end{pmatrix}.$$




    • Case $p=0$ and $r=-q$ : take :
      $$A:=begin{pmatrix}1& 1\
      1 & 0\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
      B:=begin{pmatrix}0&q\
      q & 0end{pmatrix}.tag{4}$$
      giving


    $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix} 0& q\
    -q & 0\ end{pmatrix} .$$




    Remark about the degrees of freedom we have for (2), (3) and (4) :
    Out of relationship (2) for example (the same is true for (3) and (4)), it is possible to generate a lot of other solutions to (1). For example by taking, for any $a$ and any $b$ :



    $$A:=begin{pmatrix}a& p\
    0 & a+r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
    B:=begin{pmatrix}b&0\
    1 & b+q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{5}$$



    The idea behind (5) is in fact very natural : if in (1), for a given $C$, we have a solution $(A,B)$, then, for any $k$, $(A,B+kI_2)$ is as well a solution because we still have



    $$A(B+kI_2)-(B+kI_2)A = C.$$



    (and $(A+k'I_2,B)$ as well) i.e., we can add a multiple of the identity matrix, to any of the solution matrices without changing the result. More generally, we can add to $B$ any polynomial $p(A)$ in $A$ :



    $$A(B+p(A))-(B+p(A))A = C,$$



    and, of course, to $A$ any polynomial in $B$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      The issue is to give explicit solutions $(A,B)$ to relationship :



      $$AB-BA=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}p & q\
      r& -pend{pmatrix}}_Ctag{1}$$



      We are going to consider 3 cases, from the most general to the most particular.




      • Let us assume first $p neq 0$. Relationship (1) is verified by taking :


      $$A:=begin{pmatrix}0& p\
      0 & r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
      B:=begin{pmatrix}0&0\
      1 & q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{2}$$




      • Let us now consider the case $p=0$ that we divide into 2 subcases :


      • Case $p=0$ and $r neq -q$ : it suffices to take :



      $$A:=tfrac{1}{2(q+r)}begin{pmatrix}r& -q\
      r& -qend{pmatrix} text{and}
      B:=begin{pmatrix} q& q\
      -r&-rend{pmatrix}tag{3}$$



      to get $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix}0 & q\
      r& 0end{pmatrix}.$$




      • Case $p=0$ and $r=-q$ : take :
        $$A:=begin{pmatrix}1& 1\
        1 & 0\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
        B:=begin{pmatrix}0&q\
        q & 0end{pmatrix}.tag{4}$$
        giving


      $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix} 0& q\
      -q & 0\ end{pmatrix} .$$




      Remark about the degrees of freedom we have for (2), (3) and (4) :
      Out of relationship (2) for example (the same is true for (3) and (4)), it is possible to generate a lot of other solutions to (1). For example by taking, for any $a$ and any $b$ :



      $$A:=begin{pmatrix}a& p\
      0 & a+r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
      B:=begin{pmatrix}b&0\
      1 & b+q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{5}$$



      The idea behind (5) is in fact very natural : if in (1), for a given $C$, we have a solution $(A,B)$, then, for any $k$, $(A,B+kI_2)$ is as well a solution because we still have



      $$A(B+kI_2)-(B+kI_2)A = C.$$



      (and $(A+k'I_2,B)$ as well) i.e., we can add a multiple of the identity matrix, to any of the solution matrices without changing the result. More generally, we can add to $B$ any polynomial $p(A)$ in $A$ :



      $$A(B+p(A))-(B+p(A))A = C,$$



      and, of course, to $A$ any polynomial in $B$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        The issue is to give explicit solutions $(A,B)$ to relationship :



        $$AB-BA=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}p & q\
        r& -pend{pmatrix}}_Ctag{1}$$



        We are going to consider 3 cases, from the most general to the most particular.




        • Let us assume first $p neq 0$. Relationship (1) is verified by taking :


        $$A:=begin{pmatrix}0& p\
        0 & r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
        B:=begin{pmatrix}0&0\
        1 & q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{2}$$




        • Let us now consider the case $p=0$ that we divide into 2 subcases :


        • Case $p=0$ and $r neq -q$ : it suffices to take :



        $$A:=tfrac{1}{2(q+r)}begin{pmatrix}r& -q\
        r& -qend{pmatrix} text{and}
        B:=begin{pmatrix} q& q\
        -r&-rend{pmatrix}tag{3}$$



        to get $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix}0 & q\
        r& 0end{pmatrix}.$$




        • Case $p=0$ and $r=-q$ : take :
          $$A:=begin{pmatrix}1& 1\
          1 & 0\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
          B:=begin{pmatrix}0&q\
          q & 0end{pmatrix}.tag{4}$$
          giving


        $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix} 0& q\
        -q & 0\ end{pmatrix} .$$




        Remark about the degrees of freedom we have for (2), (3) and (4) :
        Out of relationship (2) for example (the same is true for (3) and (4)), it is possible to generate a lot of other solutions to (1). For example by taking, for any $a$ and any $b$ :



        $$A:=begin{pmatrix}a& p\
        0 & a+r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
        B:=begin{pmatrix}b&0\
        1 & b+q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{5}$$



        The idea behind (5) is in fact very natural : if in (1), for a given $C$, we have a solution $(A,B)$, then, for any $k$, $(A,B+kI_2)$ is as well a solution because we still have



        $$A(B+kI_2)-(B+kI_2)A = C.$$



        (and $(A+k'I_2,B)$ as well) i.e., we can add a multiple of the identity matrix, to any of the solution matrices without changing the result. More generally, we can add to $B$ any polynomial $p(A)$ in $A$ :



        $$A(B+p(A))-(B+p(A))A = C,$$



        and, of course, to $A$ any polynomial in $B$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        The issue is to give explicit solutions $(A,B)$ to relationship :



        $$AB-BA=underbrace{begin{pmatrix}p & q\
        r& -pend{pmatrix}}_Ctag{1}$$



        We are going to consider 3 cases, from the most general to the most particular.




        • Let us assume first $p neq 0$. Relationship (1) is verified by taking :


        $$A:=begin{pmatrix}0& p\
        0 & r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
        B:=begin{pmatrix}0&0\
        1 & q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{2}$$




        • Let us now consider the case $p=0$ that we divide into 2 subcases :


        • Case $p=0$ and $r neq -q$ : it suffices to take :



        $$A:=tfrac{1}{2(q+r)}begin{pmatrix}r& -q\
        r& -qend{pmatrix} text{and}
        B:=begin{pmatrix} q& q\
        -r&-rend{pmatrix}tag{3}$$



        to get $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix}0 & q\
        r& 0end{pmatrix}.$$




        • Case $p=0$ and $r=-q$ : take :
          $$A:=begin{pmatrix}1& 1\
          1 & 0\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
          B:=begin{pmatrix}0&q\
          q & 0end{pmatrix}.tag{4}$$
          giving


        $$AB-BA=begin{pmatrix} 0& q\
        -q & 0\ end{pmatrix} .$$




        Remark about the degrees of freedom we have for (2), (3) and (4) :
        Out of relationship (2) for example (the same is true for (3) and (4)), it is possible to generate a lot of other solutions to (1). For example by taking, for any $a$ and any $b$ :



        $$A:=begin{pmatrix}a& p\
        0 & a+r\ end{pmatrix} text{and}
        B:=begin{pmatrix}b&0\
        1 & b+q/pend{pmatrix}.tag{5}$$



        The idea behind (5) is in fact very natural : if in (1), for a given $C$, we have a solution $(A,B)$, then, for any $k$, $(A,B+kI_2)$ is as well a solution because we still have



        $$A(B+kI_2)-(B+kI_2)A = C.$$



        (and $(A+k'I_2,B)$ as well) i.e., we can add a multiple of the identity matrix, to any of the solution matrices without changing the result. More generally, we can add to $B$ any polynomial $p(A)$ in $A$ :



        $$A(B+p(A))-(B+p(A))A = C,$$



        and, of course, to $A$ any polynomial in $B$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 10 at 9:38

























        answered Jan 9 at 20:06









        Jean MarieJean Marie

        28.9k42049




        28.9k42049






























            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%2f3067683%2fif-operatornametracec-0-then-there-exist-matrices-a-and-b-such%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

            Image
            Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro...
            Read more

            The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

            Image
            Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth From The Cutting Room Floor < The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth Jump to: navigation, search This is a sub-page of The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth . Afterbirth is the first expansion pack for Rebirth and features a variety of improvements. Contents 1 Unused Graphics 1.1 Old Man Keeper 1.2 Skinless Hush 1.3 Miscellaneous Unused Hush Sprites 1.4 Generosity achievement 1.5 Afterbirth+ Room Editor 1.6 Bearded Ultra Greed 1.7 Early Ultra Greed 1.8 Unused Brownie Expression 1.9 Frail's Spinning Head 1.10 Mom's Dead Hand Alt 2 Unused Audio 2.1 Unused Dead Womb Layer 2.2 Unused Hush Battle Outro 2.3 The Stain Grunt Unused Graphics Old Man Keeper Image file: gfxuimain me...
            Read more

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Image
            5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1 ...
            Read more