Math 25800: Homework 7

Peter Boyajian
April 7, 2017

1. Let q(T ) k[T ] be a non-zero polynomial which factors into a product of irreducibles p1 (T ), p2 (T ), ..., pn (T ),
n Z, and WLOG suppose that l {1, ..., n} s.t. pi (T ) is linear i < l and non-linear if i l. Then we
k[T ]
see that, in the field extension L = of k[T ], q[T ] factors into p1 (T )...pi1 (T ), all of which are
(pi (T ), ..., pn (T ))
linear by assumption.

2. Using the result which we proved in question 3 below, we have that chA (T ) is simply of the form (T
1 )...(T n ) where the i s are all the eigenvalues for A and they appear as many times as the dimension of
the corresponding generalized eigenspace, but this is exactly what we want to show! So it follows directly from
our proof of 3b that multa lg(i ) is the largest d for which (T i )d |chA (T )

3. (a) By the definition of the trace, we have that for two matrices A, B Mn (k),
n X
X n X n
n X X n
n X
T r(AB) = ai,j bj,i = bj,i ai,j = bj,i ai,j = T r(BA).
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 j=1 i=1

Here the second equality follows from the commutativity of k and the third is simply relabeling. If
we then consider two similar matrices, X and T 1 XT , we find that T r(T 1 XT ) = T r(T 1 (XT )) =
T r((XT )T 1 ) = T r(X(T T 1 )) = T r(X), and hence the traces of similar matrices are the same.
(b) From question 4b, we have that A is similar to an upper triangular matrix, X, iff mA (T ) splits into a
product of linear polynomials over k. Since the trace of similar matrices is the same, we just have to show
that Tr(A)=
X
multalg ().
k

To prove that this is the case, I will first assume WLOG that = 0 and then replace T with T-I at
the end of the proof. Let the dimension of the vector space in which we are working, V, be n. When
n=1, the claim is clearly satisfied, so we have our base case and can now induct on n. To this end,
suppose that the desired result holds for 1,...,n-1 and I will show that it hold for n. If (v1 , ..., vn ) is the
basis corresponding to X, then U, the span of (v1 , ..., vn1 ), is invariant under X and we have that X|U
is the (n-1) by (n-1) matrix contained in the top left of X. Let 1 , ..., n be the diagonal elements of
A which we know, from 4, are actually the eigenvalues of A. Then our assumption is simply that the
amount of i s which are zero is equivalent to the dimension of the nullspace of X|U but we know that
null(x|U )n1 =null(x|U )n , so we have to consider two cases: when n does and does not vanish. If the
latter is the case, then I claim that nullX n U and hence null(X|U )n =null(X)n , but from above, the
first of these terms is the number of times that ) appears in the diagonal of X|U which is what we want
to show. To see why this is true, note that the terms on the diagonal of X n are simply n1 , ..., nn (since X
is upper triangular), so X n vn = w + nn vn , w U . Now, if v nullX n , then w e U and some a k
such that v = w e + avn = X n w e + au + ann vn = X n we + aX n vn = X n v = 0, where the last equality holds
because v nullX n . This completes this part of the proof because it shows that, because X n w, e aw U
and vn / U , ann = 0 = a = 0 = v = w e U . If we consider instead the other case in which n = 0,
then we just have to show that dimnullX n =dimnull(X|U )n + 1. But we know that

dimnullX n = dim(U nullX n )+dim(U +nullX n )dimU = dimnull(X|U )n +dim(U +nullT n )(n1),

so suppose that there exists a vector which is in nullXn but not in U. Then dim(U + X n ) > dimU =
n 1,and so the first term is just n, so from the line above we reached the desired conclusion. All that

1
 we have to do is verify that there is such a vector. I claim that any vector in range(X|U )n works. Indeed,
if we pick such a vector, then X n w = X n vn and so X n (w vn ) nullX n , but then Xvn U so we have
found a w in U s.t. w-vn nullT n . This shows that the number of times that i appears in the diagonal
is precisely multalg (i )
(c) We have that chA (T ) = (T 1 )(T 2 )...(T n ) so foiling this out we get, by the binomial theorem,
that the coefficient of the term of degree n-1 is simply the sum of all of the i s
4. (a) Suppose that A is upper triangular. I will show that the set of the diagonal entries is precisely the
set of eigenvalues of A. In order to do this, I will first prove that A is invertible iff (at least) one of
its diagonal entries is zero. let (v1 , ..., vn ) be a basis for V s.t. T is the linear map associated with A
through this basis. We will denote the diagonal elements of the matrix by 1 , ..., n . If 1 = 0, then
the claim is clearly true because T v1 = 0, so suppose that k between 1 and n s.t k = 0. We then
have that T maps v1 , ..., vk1 into the span(v1 , ..., vk ) (because k 6= 0) and so there exists a linear map
: span(v1 , ..., vk ) span(v1 , ..., vk1 ) for which
v = T v. Since the dimension of the domain of is k and the dimension of its range is k-1, cannot
possibly be injective, so we have that a nonzero v span(v1 , ..., vk ) s.t. v = 0 and hence T v = 0
s.t. T, and therefore A, is not invertible. To see the other direction, suppose that A is not invertible
s.t. T is not invertible and definitely not injective. Then v V nonzero which is killed by T. We
can then write v = a1 v1 + ... + ak vk where k is the larges index for which ak 6= 0 which shows that
T(v = a1 v1 + ... + ak vk )=0, and hence (a1 T v1 +, , , +ak1 T vk1 ) = ak T vk so we see that, multiplying
by a1
k , T vk span(v1, ..., vk1 ) and hence k = 0. This proves the claim and now the problem becomes
trivial because the matrix corresponding to (T I) is not invertible iff = i for some i along the
diagonal of A. And hence is an eigenvalue of T iff it is along the diagonal of A.
(b) Suppose first that mA (T ) splits into a product of linear polynomials over k, then we have from the previous
hw that A is similar to a matrix in Jordan Canonical Form which shows immediately that it is similar to a
upper triangular matrix bc the JCF is diagonal, so we just have to show the other direction. Accordingly,
let us suppose that A is similar to a upper triangular matrix and let n be the dimension of the vector
space, V, corresponding to A. We then know from part a that the characteristic polynomial of the upper
triangular matrix is a product of linear factors so, since the eigenvalues of similar matrices are the same,
it follows that the characteristic polynomial of A is also a product of linear factors, but mA (T )|chA (T ),
so we can conclude that the minimal polynomial must also be a product of linear factors.
5. (a) To begin, note that the Jordan block matrix Jd () can be written in the form + where = I and

0 1 ... ... 0
.. .
.
0 1 . . . ..
= ... . . . . . . . . . ...


.
.. . . . . . . . . . 1

0 ... ... ... 0

If we consider the powers of , then we see that as the power increases, the ones along the diagonal shift
to the right until they eventually vanish when n=d-1 so, for n = 2

Jd ()2 = ( + )2 = 2 + 2 + 2

For n = 3
Jd ()3 = ( + )3 = 3 + 32 + 3 2 + 3
And continuing on we find via the binomial theorem that:
   
n n n n n1 n
Jd () = ( + ) = + + ... + n1 + n
1 n1

(b) Let A Mn (k) and note that, given the eigenvalues of A, we can extend to a larger field containing these
eigenvalues and then use the algorithm that we know to put A in Jordan canonical form which yields an
invertible matrix T and another matrix J in JCF such that A = T 1 JT = An = T 1 J n T , so all we
have to do to find the nth power of A is find the nth power of J and then conjugate J n with T. Finding

2
 the nth power of J is completely analogous to applying the method described in part a to all of the Jordan
blocks of J, so the only remaining part is to descend back to the original field which we know maintains
similarity
6. By way of contradiction, I will suppose that r R which cannot be written as a finite product of irreducibles.
If r is irreducible, then we are done, if not, then a, b R which are non-units s.t. r = ab. If a and b are
irreducible, then we are done, if not, then one of them can be written similarly as a product cd s.t r=cd(b).
Continuing on in this way, we will obtain the infinite inclusion (r) (a) (b) .... The inclusions are proper
because, for example, if (r)=(a), then rx=a and ay=r so a=ayx = yx=1 and hence x and y are units. This
contradicts the initial assumption that r=ab for a non-unit b. A similar argument can be applied at each
inclusion to show that they all must be proper, thus, since R is a PID, we know that this chain must terminate
and so r is a product of a finite element of irreducibles
7. Let A be an n m matrix. The following is an algorithm to put A in Smith Normal Form which follows the
basic outline on Wikipedia. Note that we do these steps inductively where t goes from 1 to m.
Step 1: Choose jt to be the smallest column index of A with a non-zero entry, starting the search at column index
jt1 + 1 if t > 1.
We wish to have at,jt 6= 0. If this is the case we are done. Otherwise, there is by assumption some k with
ak,jt 6= 0, and we can exchange rows t and k, thereby obtaining at,jt 6= 0. So, our chosen pivot is now at
position (t, jt ).
Step 2: If there is any entry at position (k, jt ) s.t. at,jt - ak,jt , then letting = gcd(at,jt , ak,jt ), we know by the
Bezout property that there exist , R s.t.

at,jt + ak,jt = .

By left multiplication with an appropriate invertible matrix L, it can be achieved that row t of the matrix
product is the sum of times the original row t and times the original row k, that row k of the product
is another linear combination of those original rows, and that all other rows are unchanged. Explicitly, if
and satisfy the above equation, then for = at,jt / and = ak,jt / (which divisions are possible by
the definition of ) one has
+ = 1,
so that the matrix  

L0 =

is invertible, with inverse  


Now L can be obtained by fitting L0 into rows and columns t and k of the identity matrix. By construction
the matrix obtained after left-multiplying by L has entry at position (t, jt ). This new entry divides
the entry at,jt that was there before, and so in particular () < (at,jt ); therefore repeating these steps
must eventually terminate. One ends up with a matrix having an entry at position (t, jt ) that divides all
entries in column jt . Here is the function that tells us the number of prime factors of the input i.e. .
Step 3: Finally, adding appropriate multiples of row t, it can be achieved that all entries in column jt except for
that at position (t, jt ) are zero. This can be achieved by left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix.
However, to make the matrix fully diagonal we need to eliminate nonzero entries on the row of position
(t, jt ) as well. This can be achieved by repeating the steps in Step 2 for columns instead of rows, and
using multiplication on the right by the transpose of the obtained matrix L. In general this will result in
the zero entries from the prior application of Step 3 becoming nonzero again.
However, notice that the ideals generated by the elements at position (t, jt ) form an ascending chain,
because entries from a later step always divide entries from a previous step. Therefore, since R is a PID,
the ideals eventually become stationary and do not change. This means that at some stage after Step 2
has been applied, the entry at (t, jt ) will divide all nonzero row or column entries before applying any more
steps in Step 2. Then we can eliminate entries in the row or column with nonzero entries while preserving
the zeros in the already-zero row or column. At this point, only the block of A to the lower right of (t, jt )
needs to be diagonalized, and conceptually the algorithm can be applied recursively, treating this block
as a separate matrix. In other words, we can increment t by one and go back to Step 1.

3
Step 4: Applying the steps described above to the remaining non-zero columns of the resulting matrix (if any),
we get an m nmatrix with column indices j1 < ... < jr where r min(m, n). The matrix entries (l, jl )
are non-zero, and every other entry is zero.
Now we can move the null columns of this matrix to the right, sot hat the nonzero entries are on positions
(i, i) for 1 i r. For short, set i for the element at position (i, i).
The condition of divisibility of diagonal entries might not be satisfied. For any index i < r for which
i - i+1 , one can repair this shortcoming by operations on rows and columns i and i + 1 only: first add
column i + 1 to column i to get an entry i+1 in column i without disturbing the entry i at position
(i, i), and then apply a row operation to make the entry at position (i, i) equal to = gcd(i , i+1 ), it is
divisible by .
The value (1 ) + ... + (r ) does not change by the above operation (it is of the determinant of the
upper r r submatrix), whence that operation does diminish (by moving prime factors to the right) the
value of
X r
(r j)(j ).
j=1
So after finitely many applications of this operation no further application is possible, which means that
we have obtained 1 |2 |...|r as desired. Since all row and column manipulations involved are invertible,
we have created S, T that satisfy the definition of the Smith Normal Form. QED
8. Since we are given that v1 v2 = det(v1 , v2 ), we have the following triangle.
F
R2 R2 R
(v1 ,v2 )7det(v1 ,v2 )

(v1 ,v2 )7v1 v2

e:171
F

2 R2

where Fe is a clear isomorphism. Equality of 2 R2 and R follows because this is the identity map.
9. If we are given S n , then
(
1 even
sgn() =
1 odd
and sigma is odd if its cycle decomposition contains an odd number of transpositions and even otherwise. Thus,
if is even, then it will switch an even number of mi s, and if it is odd it will switch an odd number. Since
is alternating and multilinear, this introduces a factor of -1 raised to an even or odd power, respectively. More
specifically, we have that:
m(1) ... m(n) = sgn()m1 ... mn
10. (a) Let M be an R-Module, and let M 0 n M be the R-submodule generated by elements of the form
m1 m2 ... mn arising from n-tuples in M n , and let Q=n M/M . Consider what it means to give
a homomorphism of R-modules Q N . By the construction of Q, we see that this is simply giving a
homomorphism Fe : n M N which kills M 0, but there is a universal property which states that if we
give a homomorphism from M M ... M to N , then such an Fe will come along for the ride (and, in
| {z }
ntimes
fact, be unique), provided that the original homomorphism also kills M 0, of course. This is summarized
by the following triangle:
F
M M ... M N
| {z } (m1 ,...,mn )70
ntimes

(m1 ,...,mn )7m1 m2 ...mn F

e

2 M

4
 .
(b) The uniqueness of Fe discussed above shows that if we let F = 0, then, since Fe = 0 is a valid homomorphism
out of Q which satisfies the criteria of the triangle, it must be the unique such homomorphism. But this
shows that any homomorphism out of Q must be 0, and the only way that this can happen is if Q itself
is zero. By the definition of Q, this directly implies that n M/M = 0 and hence that M 0 = n M
(c) We know that M 0 = n M so every mi MP 0
P
looks like ri (x1,j , x2,j , ..., xnj ), but the
P mi s are generated
by {m1 , ..., md } s.t. each xi is of the form c m
i i and by linearity (x 1 j, ..., xn j) = di (mi 1, ..., mi n),
ri di(mi 1, ..., mi n) which shows that n M is generated by the
P P
but then m must be of the form
(mi 1, ..., mi n)s
(d) The only non trivial part to show is the second half of the statement (the first half follows directly from
c), but if d > n, then i, j s.t. mi = mj = (m1 , ..., mn ) = 0 because is alternating. Since this holds
m m0 , it follows that n M = 0 QED