Scribd
Upload
276 views1 page

6 - Updated - Problems and Solutions

The document proves that if matrices X and Y satisfy 2Y2 = XY - YX and the rank of X - Y is 1, then Y3 = YXY. It does this by considering the Jordan canonical form of Y and showing that in each case of the possible Jordan forms, the equation Yzw*Y = 0 must hold, which implies that Y3 = YXY.

Uploaded by

Andy Victor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
276 views1 page

6 - Updated - Problems and Solutions

The document proves that if matrices X and Y satisfy 2Y2 = XY - YX and the rank of X - Y is 1, then Y3 = YXY. It does this by considering the Jordan canonical form of Y and showing that in each case of the possible Jordan forms, the equation Yzw*Y = 0 must hold, which implies that Y3 = YXY.

Uploaded by

Andy Victor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

is equal to

⎡ ⎤
2AD 2 AD 2 + BD 2 − AB 2 AD 2 + CD 2 − AC 2
1 ⎣
det AD + BD 2 − AB 2
2
2BD 2 BD 2 + CD 2 − BC 2 ⎦ .
2 AD 2 + CD 2 − AC 2 BD + CD 2 − BC 2
2
2CD 2
The determinant here is the Cayley–Menger determinant for the tetrahedron ABCD and
its value is 2882 , where  is the volume of ABCD. Hence (∗) is equal to 1442 , which
is clearly nonnegative. This yields the desired inequality, and equality holds if and only if
 = 0, in other words A, B, C, and D are coplanar.
Editorial comment. The Cayley–Menger determinant generalizes Heron’s formula for the
area of a triangle to simplices of higher dimension.
Also solved by M. Bataille (France), R. Chapman (UK), G. Fera & G. Tescaro (Italy), D. Fleischman,
E. A. Herman, W. Janous (Austria), M. Kaplan & M. Goldenberg, B. Karaivanov (USA) & T. S. Vassilev
(Canada), K. T. L. Koo (China), A. Stadler (Switzerland), R. Stong, T. Wiandt, and the proposer.

A Matrix Equation
12173 [2020, 275]. Proposed by Florin Stanescu, Serban Cioculescu School, Gaesti,
Romania. Suppose that X and Y are n-by-n complex matrices such that 2Y 2 = XY − Y X
and the rank of X − Y is 1. Prove Y 3 = Y XY .
Solution by Roger A. Horn, Tampa, FL. Let z and w be nonzero complex n-vectors such
that X − Y = zw ∗ . It suffices to show that if

2Y 2 = zw ∗ Y − Y zw ∗ , (1)

then Y zw ∗ Y = 0. Jacobson’s lemma (see page 126 of R. Horn and C. Johnson (2018),
Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed., New York: Cambridge University Press) states that if BC −
CB commutes with C, then BC − CB is nilpotent. Consequently, Y 2 (and hence Y ) is
nilpotent. The rank of Y 2 is at most 2, since it is the sum of two matrices whose ranks are
at most 1. Therefore, the Jordan canonical form of Y is a direct sum of nilpotent Jordan
blocks that are not larger than 4-by-4. There are three cases.
Case (a): Y 2 = 0 (no block larger than 2-by-2). If Y 2 = 0, then Y 2 z = 0 and

0 = 2Y 3 = Y 2Y 2 = Y zw ∗ Y − Y 2 zw ∗ = Y zw ∗ Y. (2)

Case (b): Y 2 = 0 and Y 3 = 0 (the largest block is 3-by-3). We compute

0 = 2Y 4 = Y 2 2Y 2 = Y 2 zw ∗ Y − Y 3 zw ∗ = (Y 2 z)(w ∗ Y ).
Either w ∗ Y = 0 and we are done, or w ∗ Y = 0 and Y 2 z = 0. In the latter case, (2) also
holds, and it ensures that Y zw∗ Y = 0.
Case (c): Y 3 = 0 and Y 4 = 0 (the largest block is 4-by-4). Let v be a complex n-vector
such that Y 3 v = 0. Suppose Y z = 0. We compute
0 = 2Y 5 v = 2Y 2 Y 3 v = zw ∗ Y 4 v − Y zw ∗ Y 3 v = −(w ∗ Y 3 v)Y z,

so w ∗ Y 3 v = 0. We also have

0 = 2Y 4 v = 2Y 2 Y 2 v = zw ∗ Y 3 v − Y zw ∗ Y 2 v = −(w ∗ Y 2 v)Y z,

so w ∗ Y 2 v = 0 as well. Now compute

2Y 3 v = 2Y 2 Y v = zw ∗ Y 2 v − Y zw ∗ Y v = −(w ∗ Y v)Y z, (3)

950 
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 128

You might also like