3
$\begingroup$

Does the following reasoning make sense?

I have an $n\times n$ matrix $M$ acting on $\mathbb C^n$

Then,

The eigenspace of matrix $M$ is $\ker(M-\lambda I)$.

The eigenvalues of  $M^2$ are $\lambda^2$, where $\lambda$ are eigenvalues of $M$.

$Mv=\lambda v \implies M^2 v=\lambda^2v \implies$ eigenvectors of $M$ are eigenvectors of $M^2$

Now $M^2v=\lambda^2 v\implies Mv=\pm\lambda v$ so eigenvectors of $M^2$ are also eigenvectors of $M$

Hence the eigenspaces of $M$ and $M^2$ are the same? (Check: To have the same eigenspace does that mean just having the same set of eigenvectors?)

Thanks.

  • 0
    +1 for showing that some thought went into this before posting.2011-11-07

1 Answers 1

3

There is no such thing as "the eigenspace of a matrix". Rather, eigenspaces are associated to eigenvalues, so you should say "The eigenspace of $M$ corresponding to $\lambda$." With that proviso, you are correct that the eigenspace of $M$ corresponding to a given eigenvalue $\lambda$ is $\mathrm{ker}(M-\lambda I)$.

It is also true that if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $M$, then $\lambda^2$ is an eigenvalue of $M^2$. However, it is not true that if $\lambda^2$ is an eigenvalue of $M$, then $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $M$ (e.g., $(-1)^2$ is an eigenvalue of $I^2$, but $-1$ is not an eigenvalue of $I$, where $I$ is the identity matrix).

It is not true in general that eigenvectors of $M^2$ are eigenvectors of $M$. For example, consider the matrix $M=\left(\begin{array}{rr} 0 & -1\\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right).$ Then $M^2 = \left(\begin{array}{rr} -1 & 0\\ 0 & -1 \end{array}\right),$ so $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are eigenvectors of $M^2$. However, neither one is an eigenvector of $M$.

This example also shows that the eigenspaces may be different. $M^2$ has a unique eigenspace, equal to all of $\mathbb{C}^2$, whereas $M$ has two one-dimensional eigenspaces, one associate to $\lambda =i$ and one associated to $\lambda =-i$.


You can fix the backward implication ("if $\lambda^2$ is an eigenvalue of $M^2$, then $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $M$") with some care. For example, because you are working over the complex numbers, the minimal polynomial of $M^2$ splits. Let $\mu(t)$ be the minimal polynomial; if $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k$ are the distinct eigenvalues of $M^2$, then we know that $\mu(t) = (t-\lambda_1)^{a_1}\cdots(t-\lambda_k)^{a_k}.$ Since $\mu(M^2) = \mathbf{0}$, then we have that $\mathbf{0} = \mu(M^2) = (M^2-\lambda_1)^{a_1}\cdots (M^2-\lambda_k)^{a_k} = (M-\rho_1)^{a_1}(M+\rho_1)^{a_1}\cdots (M-\rho_k)^{a_k}(M+\rho_k)^{a_k},$ where $\rho_i$ is a complex number such that $\rho_i^2 = \lambda_i$ (i.e., a square root of $\lambda_i$).

Let $q(t)$ be the polynomial $q(t) = (t-\rho_1)^{a_1}(r+\rho_1)^{a_1}\cdots (t-\rho_k)^{a_k}(t+\rho_k)^{a_k}.$ Since $q(M)=\mathbf{0}$, the minimal polynomial of $M$ divides $q(t)$; therefore, the eigenvalues of $M$ are among $\pm\rho_1,\pm\rho_2,\ldots,\pm\rho_k$, and those are the only eigenvalues of $M$.

So if $\lambda_1^2,\ldots,\lambda_k^2$ are the eigenvalues of $M^2$, then you can conclude that the eigenvalues of $M$ are among $\pm\lambda_1$, $\pm\lambda_2,\ldots,\pm\lambda_k$.

Note, however, that although you can go from $Mv = \lambda v$ to $M^2v = \lambda^2v$, you cannot go from $M^2v = \lambda^2v$ to $Mv=\pm\lambda v$, even if you know that $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $M$, as the example above shows (we have $M^2(1,0) = i^2(1,0)$, and we know that $i$ is an eigenvalue of $M$, but $M(1,0)\neq \pm i(1,0)$); so the line that begins with "Now $M^2v=\lambda^2 v$..." is incorrect.