1
$\begingroup$

Let A , B denote two symmetric matrices of the same order n. and Spec(A)=X , Spec(B)=Y.

If Spec(A+B)=X $\cup$ Y , proof thar AB=0.

here Spec(A) means the set of the engevalues of A.

This is a problem posed in a math forum bbs in China , I find it interesting, so I

also put it here.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ There is a counter-example: let A=diag(2,1,0,0), B=diag(-1,1,-1,0), then A+B=diag(1,2,-1,0) and AB=diag(-2,1,0,0). Perhaps something missing in the formulation. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2010 at 12:47
  • $\begingroup$ Would assuming $X\cap Y=\emptyset$ repair the problem? $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2010 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ I'll answer my own question. If $X\cap Y=\emptyset$ and $AB=0$ then one of the two matrices is invertible, hence the other is the zero matrix. Hence, if this was the formulation of the problem then the conclusion holds in a trivial sense, which at least makes the problem not so good. I could change my extra condition into $X\cap Y\subseteq\{0\}$, but I'd better stop my idle guessing game now. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2010 at 17:57

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Zhaoliang,

Maybe you wanted to ask this question:

Let $A$ and $B$ be two $n \times n$ real symmetric matrices such that $$ \det(I_n-xA)\det(I_n-yB) = \det(I_n - xA-yB)$$ holds for all real values of $x$ and $y$. Then $A B = 0$.

There are many proof, my favorite is probably a short proof in the paper On a matrix theorem of A. T. Craig and H. Hotelling by Olga Taussky.

You can also assume only that $\forall x\in \mathbb{R}, \det(I_n-xA)\det(I_n-xB) = \det(I_n - xA-xB)$, then you still have $AB=0$, but this is not in Taussky's article.

For those of you interested, here is a variant: If $\mathcal{S}\subset \mathbb{R}$ such that $|\mathcal{S}|=n^2$, and $\forall x\in \mathcal{S}, \det(I_n-xA)\det(I_n-xB) = \det(I_n - xA-xB)$, do we necessarily have $AB=0$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Counter example:

take the diagonal matrices:

$A=D(2,1,1,0,0)$ and $B=D(0,0,1,2,0)$

If you want the multiplicity to match (thinking of $X \cup Y$ is a "multiset" union) then it is easy to create an inductive argument proving the assertion.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Multiset union would have total multiplicity 2n making the assumption impossible. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2010 at 13:02
  • $\begingroup$ you are right of course, however, regarding this in a based sense and ignoring multiplicities of 0 it does work. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2010 at 20:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.