5
$\begingroup$

I've been chewing on the following problem for some time and I just don't have any more ideas how to tackle it. I have matrices $A_1,...,A_k \in \mathbb R^{n\times n}$ and I'm observing that the spectrum of the product is the same whatever order of multiplication I choose, that is, for an arbitrary permutation $\pi$ on ${1,...,k}$, I have $$\sigma(A_1\cdot ...\cdot A_k) = \sigma(A_{\pi(1)}\cdot ...\cdot A_{\pi(k)}).$$ Of course, the form of the matrices is important since the above equality doesn't hold in general. All are of the form: $$ A_j = \left[ \array{0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 & 1 \\ a_j & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & a_j } \right],$$ with possibly all different $a_j \in\mathbb{R},\ j=1,...,k$. I find this quite peculiar and I don't see the reason, although all tested examples confirm the statement... I would be very curious and grateful if someone has an idea how to solve that... Thanks ahead for your comments!

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ shouldn't $n$'s in the formula for $\sigma$ actually be $k$'s? $\endgroup$ Oct 1, 2014 at 12:41
  • $\begingroup$ Of course! Sorry! edited... $\endgroup$
    – Leolo
    Oct 1, 2014 at 12:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As Denis Serre pointed out, the claim is false when $(n,k)=(2,4)$. It is also false in some cases where $n>k$, such as $(5,4)$. However, when $n=k<9$, one can check that the characteristic polynomial is completely symmetric. I do not know whether that is still true for $n=k\geq 9$. $\endgroup$ Oct 1, 2014 at 16:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This reminds me a lot of Fiedler companion matrices. If you haven't yet, you should definitely check out A note on companion matrices, M. Fiedler, 2003. It does not prove your conjecture (which seems to be false, according to the answers below), but it provides a family of matrices $\hat{A}_j$, not too different from your $A_j$'s, which have the property you are looking for (the spectrum of their product does not depend on the order). $\endgroup$ Oct 1, 2014 at 18:22

3 Answers 3

8
$\begingroup$

It seems that the claim is false when $n=2$ and $k=4$, because $${\rm Tr} (A_1A_2A_3A_4)=a_1a_3+a_2a_4+\sigma_3({\bf a})+\sigma_4({\bf a})$$ is not symmetric in ${\bf a}=(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$.

Edit: just let me add a classical result. Let $C_1,\ldots,C_r$ be the companion matrices of unitary polynomials $P_1,\ldots,P_r$ of same degree $n$. Suppose that $\lambda$ is a common root to all the $P_j's$. Then $\lambda^r$ is an eigenvalue of the product $C_1\cdots C_r$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Dennis, this proves my conjecture wrong, of course. $\endgroup$
    – Leolo
    Oct 10, 2014 at 10:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Leolo. You know that France is a poor country, if not underdevelopped: here, Denis has only one N. $\endgroup$ Oct 10, 2014 at 12:18
1
$\begingroup$

As suggested in Neil Strickland's comment, the claim seems to hold indeed for $n=k$. Inspection shows that the characteristic polynomial of the product can be written simply as $$\det(x-A_1\cdot ...\cdot A_n)=x^n-\sum_{i=1}^n (x-1)^{i-1} x^{n-i}s_i,$$ where $s_i$ is the $i$-th symmetric function of $a_1,…,a_n$. The proof of this should not be hard using some kind of induction.
E.g. for $n=4$, in expanded form it is $$x^4-(s_1+s_2+s_3+s_4)x^3+(s_2+2s_3+3s_4)x^2-(s_3+3s_4)x+s_4.$$

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Write $diag(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$ for the diagonal matrix with entries $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$. The matrix in question as $J(a_j)=diag(1,\dots,1,a_j)P$ for a fixed matrix $P$. For a given matrix $A$, each coefficient of the characteristic polynomial $\det(x-diag(1,\dots,a)A)$ is a polynomial in $a$ of degree $\le 1$. Now each coefficient of the characteristic polynomial $$ \det(x-J(a_1)\cdots J(a_k)) $$ is a polynomial in the $a_j$ which is invariant under cyclic permutations and is of degree $\le 1$ in each variable $a_j$. Each such polynomial must be invariant under the whole permutation group.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The matrix $A_j$ in the question has the entire bottom row equal to $a_j$, whereas your solution seems to only have one entry in the bottom row equal to $a_j$, and the rest $0$, right? $\endgroup$ Oct 1, 2014 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ No, it is a matrix product! $\endgroup$
    – Doug
    Oct 1, 2014 at 15:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The expression $a_1a_3+a_2a_4$ from Denis's answer provides a counterexample to your final claim. (I take it by "degree $1$" you mean in each of the $a_j$'s separately, if you treat the others as constants.) $\endgroup$ Oct 1, 2014 at 16:06

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.