MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My collaborators and I are studying certain rigidity properties of hyperbolic toral automorphisms.

These are given by integral matrices A with determinant 1 and without eigenvalues on the unit circle.

We obtain a result under two additional assumptions

1) Characteristic polynomial of the matrix A is irreducible

2) Every circle contains no more than two eigenvalues of A (i.e. no more than two eigenvalues have the same absolute values)

We feel that the second assumption holds for a "generic" matrix. Is it true?

To be more precise, consider the set X of integral hyperbolic matrices which have determinant 1 and irreducible characteristic polynomial. What are the possible ways to speak of a generic matrix from X? Does assumption 2) hold for generic matrices?


  • Assumption 1) doesn't bother us as it is a necessary assumption.
  • Probably it is easier to answer the question when X is the set off all integral matrices. In this case we need to know that hyperbolicity is generic, 2) is generic and how generic is irreducibility.
share|cite|improve this question
Unless all eigenvalues are collinear, there must be a circle containing 3 of them. Or does 2) mean that no more than two eigenvalues have the same modulus? – Gjergji Zaimi Apr 18 '10 at 22:46
Yes circle centered at origin, you are right, 2) just means that no more than two eigenvalues have the same absolute value. – Andrey Gogolev Apr 18 '10 at 23:07
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Yes, a generic integer matrix has no more than two eigenvalues of the same norm. More precisely, I will show that matrices with more than two eigenvalues of the same norm lie on a algebraic hypersurface in $\mathrm{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathbb{R})$. Hence, the number of such matrices with integer entries of size $\leq N$ is $O(N^{n^2-1})$.

Let $P$ be the vector space of monic, degree $n$ real polynomials. Since the map "characteristic polynomial", from $\mathrm{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathbb{R})$ to $P$ is a surjective polynomial map, the preimage of any algebraic hypersurface is algebraic. Thus, it is enough to show that, in $P$, the polynomials with more than two roots of the same norm lie on a hypersurface. Here are two proofs, one conceptual and one constructive.

Conceptual: Map $\mathbb{R}^3 \times \mathbb{R}^{n-4} \to P$ by $$\phi: (a,b,r) \times (c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_{n-4}) \mapsto (t^2 + at +r)(t^2 + bt +r) (t^{n-4} + c_1 t^{n-5} + \cdots + c_{n-4}).$$

The polynomials of interest lie in the image of $\phi$. Since the domain of $\phi$ has dimension $n-1$, the Zariski closure of this image must have dimension $\leq n-1$, and thus must lie in a hyperplane.

Constructive: Let $r_1$, $r_2$, ..., $r_n$ be the roots of $f$. Let $$F := \prod_{i,j,k,l \ \mbox{distinct}} (r_i r_j - r_k r_l).$$ Note that $F$ is zero for any polynomial in $\mathbb{R}[t]$ with three roots of the same norm. Since $F$ is symmetric, it can be written as a polynomial in the coefficients of $f$. This gives a nontrivial polynomial condition which is obeyed by those $f$ which have roots of the sort which interest you.

share|cite|improve this answer
Although this does not really affect the answer, there is one more component: one of the roots is real and the other two are complex conjugate. – damiano Apr 20 '10 at 7:22
Good point. So one needs a second component, parameterized by $(t-r)(t^2+at+r^2)(t^{n-3}+\ldots)$ or, from the second perspective, one needs to consider $\prod (r_i r_j - r_k^2)$. – David Speyer Apr 20 '10 at 11:51
Thank you very much! This is really nice, especially the "conceptual proof". I understand that the estimate $O(N^{n^2-1}$ should follow from the fact that "bad" matrices lie on an algebraic hypersurface. This is because all the "folding" occurs in a compact core, outside of which the hypersurface is sufficiently "straight". But is it really so obvious? – Andrey Gogolev Apr 20 '10 at 17:08

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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