I'm teaching a second course in advanced linear algebra, following the second half of Hoffman-Kunze. I have come across what I believe to be an error, but I want confirmation (or refutation) by experts. Here is the setup:

Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional inner product space over either $\mathbb C$ or $\mathbb R$. [Here the inner product is always positive definite.] Let $T$ be a normal linear operator on $V$. This means $T$ commutes with its adjoint $T^*$. In Hoffman-Kunze Section 9.6, page 355, they (correctly) prove that if $W$ is any $T$-invariant subspace of $V$, then it is also $T^*$-invariant, and consequently the orthogonal complement $W^{\perp}$ is also both $T$-invariant and $T^*$-invariant. Moreover, the restriction of $T$ to both $W$ and $W^{\perp}$ is again normal. [They don't say it this way, but that is implicit in their proof of Theorem 19.]

Next, they say that "one can now easily prove" a *strengthened cyclic decomposition theorem", which is Theorem 20 at the bottom of page 355. I didn't find this so easy (perhaps I am missing something), but I did indeed find a proof. The relevant fact here is that there is an orthogonal direct sum decomposition $V = Z(v_1, T) \oplus \cdots \oplus Z(v_r, T)$ where $Z(v, T) = \mathrm{span} \{ v, Tv, T^2v, \cdots \}$ is the $T$-cyclic subspace of $V$ generated by $v$.

It's the "Corollary" at the top of page 356 that I do not believe. It says:

Corollary. If $A$ is a normal matrix over $\mathbb R$ (respectively, $\mathbb C$) then there exists a real orthogonal (respectively, unitary) matrix $P$ such that $P^{-1} A P = P^* A P$ is in rational canonical form.

This means that one can find an orthonormal basis of $V$ in which the matrix for $T$ is in rational canonical form. Since the $Z(v_i, T)$'s are orthogonal, this means that we can find an orthonormal basis of each $Z(v_i, T)$ with respect to which the matrix of the restriction $T_i$ of $T$ to $Z(v_i, T)$ is the companion matrix for the minimal polynomial $p_i$ of $T_i$.

But this seems to be equivalent to saying that, if $S$ is a normal operator on an $m$-dimensional inner product space $W$ that admits a cyclic vector $w$, then we can choose that cyclic vector so that $\{ w, Tw, \ldots, T^{m - 1} w \}$ is orthonormal. It is easy to see that this definitely cannot hold if the field is $\mathbb R$, $m > 2$, and $S$ is self-adjoint, for the following reason. Since $S$ is self-adjoint, it is orthogonally diagonalizable by the spectral theorem. Let $\{ w_1, \ldots, w_m \}$ be an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of $S$, with $S w_i = \lambda_i w_i$. Then the $w$ we seek is of the form $w = c_1 w_1 + \cdots + c_m w_m$ for some scalars $c_1, \ldots, c_m \in \mathbb R$. But then we have

$$\langle w, T^2 w \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i^2 c_i^2 = \langle Tw, Tw \rangle.$$

But we want the left hand side to be zero and the right hand side to be one, which gives a contradiction.

Does my argument look correct? I can't find a mistake. Does anyone else agree that the Corollary on page 356 of Hoffman-Kunze is false?


  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/437253/… $\endgroup$ Jul 24 '18 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I have seen that list before, but thanks for linking to it. $\endgroup$ Jul 24 '18 at 23:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My point was that you should probably make a post in that m.se thread as well, at least once this is cleared up. But now I see you've done exactly that :) $\endgroup$ Jul 25 '18 at 0:54

I haven't thought carefully about your argument, but I agree that the corollary must be false. Suppose that $A$ is a normal $2 \times 2$ real matrix. The corollary claims that $A$ is orthogonally similar to a matrix $B$ in rational canonical form. Then $B$ is also normal, and is either diagonal (hence $A$ is symmetric), or else $$ B = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & a \\ 1 & b \end{bmatrix} $$ for some $a, b$. Normality of $B$ implies that $a = \pm 1$, so $\det A = \det B = \pm 1$.

So the Corollary entails that every nonsymmetric real normal $2 \times 2$ matrix has determinant $\pm 1$. But $\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 2 \\ -2 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$ is a counterexample.

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that looks right to me, and it also take care of the case $m = \dim W = 2$, which my counterexample didn't cover. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Jul 24 '18 at 23:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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