Skip to main content

Problem Pit: The Matrix Eigenvalue Maze

Problem Pit: The Matrix Eigenvalue Maze

The Problem

Find all possible values of $\det(A)$ where $A$ is a $3 \times 3$ matrix with integer entries such that $A^3 = 2A^2 + 3A - I$. This problem looked straightforward initially - just find the eigenvalues and compute their product. But as I dug deeper, I encountered surprising connections to algebraic number theory, minimal polynomials, and the subtle relationship between characteristic and minimal polynomials.

First Approach: The Characteristic Polynomial Route

If $A$ satisfies $A^3 = 2A^2 + 3A - I$, then rearranging: $$A^3 - 2A^2 - 3A + I = 0$$ This means the minimal polynomial of $A$ divides $m(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$. If $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$, then $m(\lambda) = 0$, so: $$\lambda^3 - 2\lambda^2 - 3\lambda + 1 = 0$$ Let me find the roots of this cubic. Using the rational root theorem, possible rational roots are $\pm 1$. Testing $\lambda = 1$: $$1 - 2 - 3 + 1 = -3 \neq 0$$ Testing $\lambda = -1$: $$-1 - 2 + 3 + 1 = 1 \neq 0$$ So there are no rational roots. This cubic has three irrational roots.

Finding the Roots of the Cubic

Using the cubic formula or numerical methods, I can find that $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1 = 0$ has roots approximately: - $\lambda_1 \approx 3.532$ - $\lambda_2 \approx -0.766 + 0.632i$ - $\lambda_3 \approx -0.766 - 0.632i$ Wait, but if $A$ has integer entries, then its characteristic polynomial has integer coefficients. Complex eigenvalues must come in conjugate pairs, and all eigenvalues must be algebraic integers. By Vieta's formulas for $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1 = 0$: - $\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + \lambda_3 = 2$ - $\lambda_1\lambda_2 + \lambda_1\lambda_3 + \lambda_2\lambda_3 = -3$ - $\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3 = -1$ So if these are the eigenvalues of $A$, then $\det(A) = -1$. But wait - is this necessarily the case?

Dead End #1: Assuming Minimal = Characteristic

I initially assumed that since $A$ satisfies $A^3 - 2A^2 - 3A + I = 0$, the characteristic polynomial must be exactly $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$. But this is wrong! The minimal polynomial divides the characteristic polynomial, but they need not be equal. For a $3 \times 3$ matrix, the minimal polynomial could be: - Degree 1: $m(x) = x - c$ (only if $A = cI$) - Degree 2: $m(x) = (x-a)(x-b)$ - Degree 3: $m(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ I need to consider all possibilities.

Case Analysis by Minimal Polynomial Degree

**Case 1: Minimal polynomial has degree 1** If $m(x) = x - c$, then $A = cI$ and $A^3 - 2A^2 - 3A + I = 0$ becomes: $$c^3I - 2c^2I - 3cI + I = (c^3 - 2c^2 - 3c + 1)I = 0$$ So $c^3 - 2c^2 - 3c + 1 = 0$, meaning $c$ is a root of our cubic. If $A = cI$, then $\det(A) = c^3$. From the cubic $c^3 - 2c^2 - 3c + 1 = 0$, we get $c^3 = 2c^2 + 3c - 1$. So $\det(A) = c^3 = 2c^2 + 3c - 1$. I need to find which of the three roots can actually occur for integer matrices.

Case 2: Minimal polynomial has degree 2

If the minimal polynomial is $(x-a)(x-b) = x^2 - (a+b)x + ab$, then this must divide $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$. Performing polynomial division: $$x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1 = (x^2 - (a+b)x + ab)(x - c) + \text{remainder}$$ For the division to be exact, I need to solve a system of equations. This gets algebraically messy, but the key insight is that the eigenvalues would be $a$, $b$, and some root of the quotient polynomial. Actually, let me think about this differently.

The Jordan Form Perspective

Every matrix is similar to its Jordan canonical form. If $A$ has minimal polynomial $m(x)$ of degree $d < 3$, then $A$ must have repeated eigenvalues. For a $3 \times 3$ matrix with minimal polynomial of degree 2, the Jordan form must be either: $$J = \begin{pmatrix} a & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & a & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & b \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{or} \quad J = \begin{pmatrix} a & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & b & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & b \end{pmatrix}$$ where the minimal polynomial is $(x-a)(x-b)$.

Dead End #2: Getting Lost in Jordan Forms

I tried to work out all possible Jordan forms and their determinants, but this approach became unwieldy. There are multiple cases depending on: - How many distinct eigenvalues there are - The sizes of the Jordan blocks - Which specific roots of the cubic appear Moreover, the constraint that $A$ has integer entries places additional restrictions on what Jordan forms are possible.

The Breakthrough: Rational Canonical Form

The key insight came when I realized I should think about this in terms of the rational canonical form rather than Jordan form. Since we're told $A$ has integer entries, $A$ is similar over $\mathbb{Q}$ to a matrix in rational canonical form. The rational canonical form depends only on the minimal polynomial and the multiplicities of its irreducible factors. Our minimal polynomial $m(x)$ divides $p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$. First, I need to factor $p(x)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. Since it has no rational roots, let me check if it's irreducible. The discriminant of $p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ is: $$\Delta = 18abc - 4a^3d + a^2b^2 - 4b^3 - 27c^2d + \ldots$$ For $p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$, we have $a = 1, b = -2, c = -3, d = 1$: $$\Delta = 18(1)(-2)(-3)(1) - 4(1)^3(1) + (1)^2(-2)^2 - 4(-2)^3 - 27(-3)^2(1)$$ $$= 108 - 4 + 4 + 32 - 243 = -103$$ Since $\Delta < 0$, the cubic has one real root and two complex conjugate roots, confirming my earlier calculation. Since $p(x)$ has no rational roots and is degree 3, it's irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$.

Consequences of Irreducibility

Since $p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$, the only possible minimal polynomials for integer matrices $A$ satisfying $p(A) = 0$ are: 1. $m(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ (full minimal polynomial) 2. Factors of $p(x)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ - but there are none since $p(x)$ is irreducible! Wait, this seems to say that the minimal polynomial must be the full cubic. But this contradicts the possibility of repeated eigenvalues...

The Subtlety: Integer Matrices vs Rational Similarity

Here's the subtle point I was missing: just because a polynomial is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ doesn't mean every matrix with that minimal polynomial has the same determinant. The issue is that matrices can have the same minimal polynomial but different characteristic polynomials! For a $3 \times 3$ matrix with irreducible minimal polynomial of degree 3, the characteristic polynomial must be exactly that minimal polynomial. This is because the minimal polynomial is the monic polynomial of smallest degree annihilating the matrix, and for a $3 \times 3$ matrix, degree 3 is maximal. So if $A$ is $3 \times 3$ and has minimal polynomial $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$, then this is also its characteristic polynomial.

But What About Repeated Roots?

Here's where I had to think more carefully. The polynomial $p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$, but what if we work over a larger field? If $\alpha$ is a root of $p(x)$, then $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ is a degree-3 extension of $\mathbb{Q}$. The minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is exactly $p(x)$. However, the constraint that $A$ has integer entries means we're looking at matrices over $\mathbb{Z}$, not just $\mathbb{Q}$.

The Algebraic Integer Constraint

If $A$ has integer entries, then its eigenvalues are algebraic integers. The polynomial $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ is monic with integer coefficients, so its roots are indeed algebraic integers. Let $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ be the three roots. Since the polynomial is irreducible, these are conjugate algebraic numbers. In any $3 \times 3$ integer matrix with this minimal polynomial, the multiset of eigenvalues must be $\{\alpha, \beta, \gamma\}$ (counting multiplicities). By Vieta's formulas: $\alpha \beta \gamma = -1$. So $\det(A) = -1$ for any such matrix.

Constructing an Example

To verify this is actually possible, I need to construct a $3 \times 3$ integer matrix with minimal polynomial $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$. The companion matrix of $p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ is: $$C = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 & 3 \\ 0 & 1 & 2 \end{pmatrix}$$ This has characteristic polynomial $\det(xI - C) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$, and since the polynomial is irreducible, this is also the minimal polynomial. We have $\det(C) = -1$, confirming our calculation.

Are There Other Possibilities?

But wait - I've only shown that matrices with minimal polynomial $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ have determinant $-1$. Could there be integer matrices satisfying $A^3 - 2A^2 - 3A + I = 0$ with different minimal polynomials? Since $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$, its only divisors are 1 and itself. The divisor $m(x) = 1$ would mean $A$ satisfies no polynomial equation of positive degree, which contradicts our given condition. Therefore, every integer matrix $A$ satisfying $A^3 = 2A^2 + 3A - I$ has minimal polynomial $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$.

The Complete Answer

Since the minimal polynomial equals the characteristic polynomial, and the characteristic polynomial is $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$, we have: $$\det(A) = (-1)^3 \cdot (\text{constant term}) = -1$$ Wait, let me double-check this. For a monic polynomial $p(x) = x^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + \cdots + a_1 x + a_0$, if this is the characteristic polynomial of matrix $A$, then: $$\det(A) = (-1)^n a_0$$ For $p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$, we have $n = 3$ and $a_0 = 1$, so: $$\det(A) = (-1)^3 \cdot 1 = -1$$ Therefore, the only possible value of $\det(A)$ is $-1$.

Verification Through Eigenvalues

Let me verify this using the actual roots. The polynomial $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1 = 0$ has roots $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ with: - $\alpha + \beta + \gamma = 2$ - $\alpha\beta + \alpha\gamma + \beta\gamma = -3$ - $\alpha\beta\gamma = -1$ So indeed $\det(A) = \alpha\beta\gamma = -1$.

Why This Problem Was Tricky

This problem had several layers of subtlety: 1. **Minimal vs Characteristic Polynomials**: Initially confusing what conditions the given matrix equation imposes. 2. **Irreducibility**: Understanding that the irreducibility of the polynomial over $\mathbb{Q}$ severely constrains the possible matrices. 3. **Algebraic Integer Theory**: Recognizing that integer matrices have eigenvalues that are algebraic integers. 4. **Rational Canonical Form**: Understanding how the structure theory of linear transformations applies to this concrete problem. The key insight was realizing that the irreducibility of $x^3 - 2x^2 - 3x + 1$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ forces this to be both the minimal and characteristic polynomial of any integer matrix satisfying the given equation.

Conclusion

The answer is that $\det(A) = -1$ is the unique possible value. This problem beautifully illustrates how constraints that seem purely computational (finding eigenvalues) actually involve deep structural questions about polynomials, field extensions, and the representation theory of linear transformations. The path through the problem pit revealed connections between elementary linear algebra and sophisticated algebraic number theory.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sharp Extremal Bounds for Angular Occupancy (Behind the Curtains)

you can find the full paper here First Attempts, and the Limits of Energy When I first began thinking about angular occupancy, I wasn’t looking for a brand-new problem. I was chasing a theme that has long fascinated me in discrete geometry: how do we measure the geometric richness of a finite set of points? This fascination is not unique to me. Erdős, way back in 1946, posed the distinct distances problem : given n points in the plane, how many distinct distances can they determine? That question alone gave birth to entire decades of work in combinatorial geometry. Later, Fishburn and Füredi asked about distinct angles , while Pach and Sharir studied repeated angles . Each time, the same underlying itch was being scratched: when you place points in the plane, what kinds of diversity can they generate? Why angles, why bins? It was natural to think of angles — after all, distances and directions had already been well studied. But if you go straight for “distinct angles,” you run in...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Art of Goodbye

  The Art of Goodbye: How Relationships End and Why It Matters The friendship had been slowly dissolving for months. What used to be weekly coffee dates became monthly check-ins, then sporadic text messages, then silence. No fight precipitated the ending, no dramatic confrontation or betrayal. It simply... faded. One day you realized you hadn't spoken to someone who was once central to your life, and you weren't sure when the relationship had officially ended or even if it had. This ambiguous loss left you with a peculiar grief – mourning someone still alive, still accessible, but no longer present in your world. This experience is incredibly common yet rarely discussed. While we have cultural scripts for how relationships begin – meet-cutes, first dates, friendship origin stories – we have few models for how they end. We talk extensively about building connections but rarely about gracefully releasing them. This gap in our social understanding leaves many people unprepared ...
1 comment
Read more

Getting Stuck: When Dijkstra Meets Negative Edges

  Getting Stuck: When Dijkstra Meets Negative Edges One of the joys (and pains) of computer science is when you take a tool you know, confidently apply it, and then watch everything break down in surprising ways. This happened to me recently when I decided to revisit shortest path algorithms — specifically, Dijkstra’s algorithm — only to get stuck in a swamp of negative edges. Setting the Scene The problem was classic: Given a directed, weighted graph and a source vertex, find the shortest path to all other vertices. This is the kind of problem that every CS student learns early, usually with Dijkstra’s algorithm. I already knew Dijkstra like an old friend: Keep a priority queue of distances. Always expand the node with the current smallest distance. Relax its edges. Simple, elegant, efficient ( O((V + E) log V) with a binary heap). So when I started coding a graph utility for my project — a tool to analyze transportation networks — I confidently plugged in D...
Post a Comment
Read more