In the Wikipedia article on Hilbert's Nullstensatz, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_Nullstellensatz the following application of the Weak Nullstensatz is mentioned:

Commuting matrices

The fact that commuting matrices have a common eigenvector – and hence by induction stabilize a common flag and are simultaneously triangularizable – can be interpreted as a result of the weak Nullstellensatz, as follows: commuting matrices form a commutative algebra $K[A_1,\ldots,A_k]$ over $K[x_1,\ldots,x_k];$ the matrices satisfy various polynomials such as their minimal polynomials, which form a proper ideal (because they are not all zero, in which case the result is trivial); one might call this the '''characteristic ideal''', by analogy with the characteristic polynomial.

One then defines an eigenvector for a commutative algebra as a vector $v$ such that for all $x \in A$ one has $x(v) = \lambda(x)\cdot v$ for a linear functional $\lambda\colon A \to K.$ This simply linearizes the definition of an eigenvalue, and is the correct definition for a common eigenvector, as if $v$ is a common eigenvector, meaning $A_i(v)=\lambda_i v,$ then the functional is defined as $\textstyle{\lambda(c_0 I + c_1 A_1 + \cdots c_k A_k) := c_0 + \sum c_i \lambda_i}$ (treating scalars as multiples of the identity matrix $A_0 := I$, which has eigenvalue 1 for all vectors), and conversely an eigenvector for such a functional $\lambda$ is a common eigenvector. Geometrically, the eigenvalue corresponds to the point in affine $k$-space with coordinates $(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k)$ with respect to the basis given by $A_i.$

Then the existence of an eigenvalue $\lambda$ is equivalent to the ideal generated by (the relations satisfied by) $A_i$ being non-empty, which exactly generalizes the usual proof of existence of an eigenvalue existing for a single matrix over an algebraically closed field by showing that the characteristic polynomial has a zero.

I am somewhat struggling to make sense of that. The Weak Nullstellensatz says that I find a functional $\lambda \colon K[A_1, \dots, A_k] \to K$, and $\lambda(A_i)$ is an eigenvalue of $A_i$. But how do I conclude that a common eigenvector exists?


My "solution" is a bit strange, but I hope it is correct.

We regard $V$ as a module over $A$. $X = {\rm Spec}\ A$ is zero-dimensional. Then (as a sheaf on $X$) $V$ decomposes into a direct sum of sheaves over the finitely many points of $X$. This corresponds to a decomposition $V$ into subspaces corresponding to different eigenvalues in the sense you described. We must have a point $p$ such that the piece $V_p$ above it (which is the localization of $V$ at the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $A$ corresponding to $p$) is nonzero. Localizing at this ideal and restricting ourselves to the subspace $V_p$, we may assume that $A$ is local. If there would be no common eigenvector in $V_p$, then we would have $\mathfrak{m}V_p = V_p$, so by Nakayama's lemma $V_p = 0$, a contradiction.

darij: Does it deserve to be "awfully sophisticated" by your standards?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To elaborate: By Nakayma, $V_p \supsetneq \mathfrak{m} V_p \supsetneq \mathfrak{m}^2 V_p \supsetneq \cdots$, with strict inequality until we reach the zero module. So, there is some $n$ such that $\mathfrak{m}^n V_p \neq (0)$ but $\mathfrak{m}^{n+1} V_p=0$. For $v \in \mathfrak{m}^n V_p \setminus \{ 0 \}$, the vector $v$ is annihilated by $\mathfrak{m}$. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Oct 23 '10 at 17:04
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Just remember that the standard proof that commuting matrices have a common eigenvector is trivial. If $A, B$ commute and $V_\alpha$ is the $\alpha$-eigenspace of $A$ (non-zero for some $\alpha$), then $\alpha Bv=BAv=A(Bv)$ for every $v\in V$, so $V_\alpha$ is invariant with respect to $B$. Now if $V_\alpha$ is the whole space, we can forget about $A$ and reduce the number of matrices. If $V_\alpha$ is not the whole space, we can reduce the dimension. No Nakayama or Hilbert are needed. $\endgroup$ – Mark Sapir Oct 23 '10 at 17:44

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.