Results 1 to 8 of 8

Math Help - A Proof Involving Upper Triangular Matrices

  1. #1
    Rhymes with Orange Chris L T521's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2008
    From
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,844
    Thanks
    3

    A Proof Involving Upper Triangular Matrices

    I'm trying to think of a way to start this "proof":

    Let S be an n\times n strictly upper triangular matrix. Show that \left(I-S\right)^{-1}=I+S^2+S^3+\dots+S^{n-1}
    Source: Matrices and Linear Algebra, 2nd Ed. by Schneider and Barker

    I don't want a complete proof. All I would appreciate would be an explanation on how I can start this. I will be able to take it from there.

    Thank you in advance!!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Let S be an n\times n strictly upper triangular matrix. Show that \left(I-S\right)^{-1}=I+S^2+S^3+\dots+S^{n-1}
    We just need to show (I - S)(I + S + S^2 + ... + S^{n-1}) = I.
    Open LHS to get, I + S + S^2 + ... + S^{n-1} - S - S^2 - ... - S^n = I - S^n.
    We want for I - S^n = I which is true if and only if S^n = \bold{0} where \bold{0} is n\times n zero matrix.

    Thus, it remains to prove S^n = \bold{0}.
    (Since S is strictly upper triangular it is nilpotent).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Rhymes with Orange Chris L T521's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2008
    From
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,844
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Thus, it remains to prove S^n = \bold{0}.
    (Since S is strictly upper triangular it is nilpotent).
    I've been trying to think of a way to prove this for hours now.

    This is brought up in the "Matrix Multiplication" section of my textbook. They ask me to prove this as well...but I can't use eigenvalues and determinants.

    I think that mathematical induction can be used...but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to let my P\left(n\right) be.

    I was thinking that P\left(n\right):A^n=0, but P\left(1\right): A=0, but that's not necessarily true.

    I would appreciate any suggestions!!!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris L T521 View Post
    I was thinking that P\left(n\right):A^n=0, but P\left(1\right): A=0, but that's not necessarily true.
    One way round that is to start the induction at n=2, where the result is easily verified.

    Another way is to think more carefully about the n=1 case. A 11 matrix has just a single element. This lies on the main diagonal (which also contains just the one element!). So if the matrix is strictly upper triangular then that element must be 0. Therefore the matrix is the zero matrix.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Lord of certain Rings
    Isomorphism's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    IISc, Bangalore
    Posts
    1,465
    Thanks
    6
    Observe that A = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & v \\ \textbf{0} & A' \end{pmatrix} where the bold faced 0 stands for the column vector 0 and v stands for a "n-1" length row vector and A' is a (n-1) x (n-1) strictly upper triangular matrix.

    finally for induction to work, you just need to see that:

    A^n = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & v(A')^{n-1} \\ \textbf{0} & (A')^n \end{pmatrix}

    Actually the above can be proved by another induction
    Last edited by Isomorphism; January 15th 2009 at 07:45 AM. Reason: Typo.. Thanks Opalg
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    7
    an easy way is to see that since \det (xI - S)=x^n, all eigenvalues of S are 0 and thus by Cayley-Hamilton: S^n=0.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor Mathstud28's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,641
    Quote Originally Posted by NonCommAlg View Post
    an easy way is to see that since \det (xI - S)=x^n, all eigenvalues of S are 0 and thus by Cayley-Hamilton: S^n=0.
    I do not know how to solve this problem, but just to make sure others are aware, I talked to Chris about this problem (outside MHF) and the difficulty he was having with it was that it was in a chapter preceeding both determinants and eigenvalues.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Isomorphism View Post
    finally for induction to work, you just need to see that:

    A^n = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & (vA')^{n-1} \\ \textbf{0} & (A')^n \end{pmatrix}
    That is almost correct, except that the entry (vA')^{n-1} should be v(A')^{n-1}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 18th 2011, 08:24 PM
  2. Proof involving least upper bound and unions
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 15th 2010, 12:21 PM
  3. upper triangular matrix
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 14th 2009, 08:34 PM
  4. Square Matrices- Upper Triangular
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 22nd 2009, 05:37 PM
  5. Strictly Upper Triangular Matrix Proof Help Needed
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 23rd 2008, 02:32 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum