A note on the kernel of a pair of linear maps
Miguel V. Carriegos†

Noemı́ DeCastro‡

∗

Ángel Luis Muñoz Castañeda§

arXiv:1603.02730v1 [math.AC] 8 Mar 2016

September 27, 2017

Abstract
The kernel of a pair of linear maps is studied in the framework of commutative
ring theory with application to behavioral perspective of dynamical systems.

Keywords: pair of linear maps, pencil of matrices, convolution code, linear system,
hereditary ring.
2010 MSC: 93B10, 15A21, 13C10.

1

Introduction

This paper is devoted to the study of kernels of pairs of linear maps. This notion extend
some tools used in systems theory, convolutional codes and Boolean networks [7], [9].
In fact if A = RZ is the R-algebra (R a ring) of sequences of elements of R; A ∈ Rn×n ,
B ∈ Rn×m are matrices and σ is the shift operator σ(x(t)) = x(t + 1). Then set
ker(σI − A, B) = {(x(t), u(t)) ∈ An × Am | σ(x(t)) = x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)}
collects the trajectories of linear system. On the other hand, it has also been defined
ker(σI − A | B) = {u(t) ∈ Am | ∃x(t) ∈ An : σ(x(t)) = x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)}
which is central in the definition of convolutional codes because it collects the codewords
of convolutional code defined by linear system (A, B). In order to attack this problem we
are studying kernels of pairs of matrices with entries in polynomial rings R[z].
Now all along this paper R will denote a commutative ring with identity. Usually R
will be a F-algebra or even a field. We develop our results in a general framework and
claim additional properties or structure when necessary.
∗

Partially supported by INCIBE. Ministerio de Industria, Spain.
RIASC, Universidad de León, SPAIN, mail to: miguel.carriegos@unileon.es
‡
Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de León, SPAIN, mail to: ncasg@unileon.es
§
Institut für Mathematik, Freie Universität, Berlin, GERMANY, mail to: angel@math.fu-berlin.de
†

1

2

Carriegos, DeCastro & Muñoz-Castañeda

Definition 1.1. Let N and Mi , i = 1, 2 be R-modules and fi : Mi → N be R-linear
maps. We define
ker(f1 | f2 ) = {m2 ∈ M2 | ∃m1 ∈ M1 : f1 (m1 ) + f2 (m2 ) = 0}
while we set
ker(f1 , f2 ) = ker(f1 ⊕ f2 : M1 ⊕ M2 → N ) = {(m1 , m2 ) ∈ M1 ⊕ M2 : f (m1 ) + f2 (m2 ) = 0}
as usual.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 deals with main properties of ker(f1 | f2 )
which follow from the fact that ker(f1 | f2 ) is the kernel of certain linear map and it is also
the cockernel of another linear map. We also point out several properties of ker(f1 | f2 )
when maps fi have nice properties.
Section 3 is devoted to give a explicit factorization of ker(f1 | f2 ) in terms of usual
kernels ker(f1 , f2 ) and ker(f1 ) when involved R-modules are hereditary or in particular
when commutative ring R is hereditary (that is when submodules of projective R-modules
are again projective). Note that the class of hereditary rings contains several interesting
classes of commutative rings like for instance fields, principal ideal domains, Dedekind
domains, von Neumann regular rings and Boolean rings.
Next we study scalar extensions R → S in section 4. If R-algebra S happens to be
R-flat then scalar extension of ker(f1 | f2 ) is given by the kernel of pair of extended maps
ker(f1 ⊗ IS | f2 ⊗ IS ). This fact is used extensively in section 5 to develop the case of
product rings R ∼
= R1 × · · · × Rs . We conclude by giving some results related to the kernel
of pairs of polynomial matrices which are applicable both in behavioral linear systems and
convolutional codes.

2

The kernel of a pair. Definition and properties

Let R be a commutative ring; M1 , M2 , N are R-modules and let fj : Mj → N be R-linear
maps.
Definition 2.1. We denote by ker(f1 | f2 ) the subset of all m2 ∈ M2 such that there
exists m1 ∈ M1 with the property f1 (m1 ) + f2 (m2 ) = 0; thats to say
ker(f1 | f2 ) = {m2 ∈ M2 | ∃m1 ∈ M1 : f1 (m1 ) + f2 (m2 ) = 0} .
This is a generalization of so-called kernel of a pair of morphisms as given in [7],
[9]. Note that it is quite clear that ker(f1 | f2 ) is a R-submodule of M2 . It is also
straightforward that

3

Kernel of a pair of linear maps
Proposition 2.2. ker(f1 | f2 ) = f2−1 (Im (f1 )).

Proof. If m2 ∈ ker(f1 | f2 ) then f1 (m1 )+f2 (m2 ) = 0 for some m1 ; that is, f2 (m2 ) ∈ Im (f1 )
or m2 ∈ f2−1 (Im (f1 ))
We are also interested in presenting ker(f1 | f2 ) as the kernel of a R-linear map and
as the cokernel of another R-linear map. Let’s denote by pi : N → N/ Im (fi ) the natural
quotient map of identity sending n 7→ n + Im (fi ). Then it is straightforward that
Proposition 2.3. ker(f1 | f2 ) = ker(p1 ◦ f2 : M2 → N/ Im (f1 ))
Proof. x ∈ ker(p1 ◦ f2 : M2 → N/ Im (f1 )) ⇔ f2 (x) ∈ Im (f1 )
On the other hand put the linear map (f1 , f2 ) : M1 ⊕ M2 → N sending (m1 , m2 ) 7→
(f1 , f2 )(m1 , m2 ) = f1 (m1 ) + f2 (m2 ). Note that ker(f1 ) ⊆ ker(f1 , f2 ) because if m ∈
ker(f1 ) then f1 (m) = 0; hence (f1 , f2 )(m, 0) = 0 and consequently (m, 0) ∈ ker(f1 , f2 ).
Moreover one has
Theorem 2.4. ker(f1 | f2 ) = coker[ker(f1 ) ֒→ ker(f1 , f2 )]
Proof. The projection onto the second factor π2 : M1 ⊕ M2 → M2 restricts to the onto
π

2
map ker(f1 , f2 ) −→
ker(f1 | f2 ) whose kernel consist of all pairs satisfying π2 (x1 , x2 ) = 0

and therefore x2 = 0 by definition of π2 . So, a fortiori, f1 (x1 ) = 0, and consequently we
are done because
h
i
π2
ker ker(f1 , f2 ) −→
ker(f1 | f2 ) = ker(f1 )
That is, the following sequence is short exact
0 → ker(f1 ) ֒→ ker(f1 , f2 ) → ker(f1 | f2 ) → 0
m1 7→ (m1 , 0)
(m1 , m2 ) 7→ m2

The following properties of the kernel of a pair of linear maps, may be easily derived.
Proposition 2.5. Consider the R-linear maps fi : Mi → N . Denote by 0 and I respectiveli the zero linear map and the identity map. Then
(i) ker(0 | f2 ) = ker(f2 )
(ii) If f1 is onto then ker(f1 | f2 ) = M2
(iii) ker(0 | I) = 0

4

Carriegos, DeCastro & Muñoz-Castañeda

(iv) ker(f1 | 0) = M2
(v) In general, Im (f2 ) ⊆ Im (f1 ) ⇒ ker(f1 | f2 ) = M2
(vi) If Ψ2 is an automorphism of M2 then mapping m2 7→ Ψ2 (m2 ) is an isomorphism
ker(f1 | f2 Ψ2 ) → ker(f1 | f2 )
(vii) ker(f1 | f2 Ψ2 ) = Ψ−1
2 (ker(f1 | f2 ))
(viii) If Ψ1 is an automorphism of M1 then ker(f1 Ψ1 | f2 ) = ker(f1 | f2 )
(ix) If Ψ is an isomorphism of N then ker(Ψf1 | f2 ) = ker(f1 | Ψ−1 f2 )
Proof. (i), (ii), (iii) are straightforward from Proposition 2.2; (iv), (v) are directly obtained
from Definition 2.1.
Property (vi) is consequence of the fact that Ψ2 maps ker(f1 | f2 Ψ2 ) onto ker(f1 | f2 ).
Since Ψ2 is injective (because it is a restriction an isomorphism) it follows that Ψ2 is itself
an isomorphism and hence the result. Property (vii) follows straightforward from (vi).
Assertion (viii) is clear because ker(f1 Ψ1 | f2 ) = {m2 ∈ M2 | ∃m1 ∈ M1 : f1 (Ψ1 m1 ) +
f2 m2 = 0}
Finally to prove (ix) note that ker(Ψf1 | f2 ) = {m2 ∈ M2 | ∃m1 ∈ M1 : Ψf1 (m1 ) +
f2 m2 = 0}. Defining condition is equivalent to saying that f1 m1 + Ψ−1 f2 m2 = 0 which is
the definition of ker(f1 | Ψ−1 f2 )

3

Hereditary rings

A R-module M is called hereditary if every submodule of M is projective. If every ideal
of R is projective (that is, R is a ring of global dimension one) then every projective Rmodule is hereditary and commutative ring R is called hereditary. A hereditary integral
domain is a Dedekind domain.
Assume that R-modules Mi , N are hereditary R-modules. It follows that all R-modules
in exact sequence of Theorem 2.4
0 → ker(f1 ) ֒→ ker(f1 , f2 ) → ker(f1 | f2 ) → 0

are projective. Therefore
Theorem 3.1. If R-modules Mi and N are hereditary (in particular if R is itself an
hereditary ring) then one has the factorization ker(f1 , f2 ) ∼
= ker(f1 ) ⊕ ker(f1 | f2 ) and,
consequently
ker(f1 | f2 ) ∼
= ker(f1 , f2 )/ ker(f1 )

5

Kernel of a pair of linear maps

Example 3.2. Put a matrix A ∈ Rn×n with no real eigenvalues and B ∈ Rn×m then one
has the isomorphism ker(zI − A | B) ∼
= ker(zI − A, B). This result, translated to the case
of z = σ the shift operator in R-algebra A = RZ , implies that sequences of admissible
controls ~u(t) of linear system ~x(t + 1) = A~x(t) + B~u(t) are in bijective correspondece with
trajectories (solutions) (~x(t), ~u(t)) of linear system.

4

Scalar Extension. Base change

Assume in the sequel that S is a R-algebra with structural morphism ρ : R → S. Scalar
extension of R-module M is the S-module ρ∗ (M ) = M ⊗R S, while scalar extension of
R-linear map f : M → N is given by ρ∗ (f ) = f ⊗ IS : M ⊗R S → N ⊗R S.
Scalar extension functor (− ⊗R S) preserves onto linear mappings, it is right-exact
(see [1]) and hece it preserves epimorphisms. But notice that neither monomorphisms nor
kernels are conserved in general by scalar extensions; for instance take ker[2 : Z → Z] = 0
and observe that ker[2⊗ IZ/2Z : Z ⊗Z Z/2Z → Z ⊗Z Z/2Z] = ker[0 : Z/2Z → Z/2Z] = Z/2Z
A R-module (respectively R-algebra) S is flat (respectively flat algebra) if functor
(− ⊗R M ) happens to be exact; that is it transforms exact sequences into exact sequences.
Examples of R-flat modules are free R-modules and projective R-modules [1],[2], [3] or [8].
Within these conditions one has
Theorem 4.1. If S is a flat R-algebra then
ρ∗ (ker(f1 | f2 )) = ker(ρ∗ (f1 ) | ρ∗ (f2 ))
Proof. Scalar extension functor ρ∗ (−) = − ⊗R S is exact because S is R-flat. Hence exact
sequence
0

ι

// ker(f1 )

π

// ker(f1 , f2 )

// ker(f1 | f2 )

// 0

yields the exact sequence
0

// ker(f1 ) ⊗R S

ι⊗IS

// ker(f1 , f2 ) ⊗R S

π⊗IS

// ker(f1 | f2 ) ⊗R S

// 0

Once again, since S is R-flat it follows the commutative square
0

// ker(f1 ) ⊗R S

0

// ker(f1 ⊗ IS )

ι⊗IS

ι′ //

// ker(f1 , f2 ) ⊗R S

ker(f1 ⊗ IS , f2 ⊗ IS )

and therefore ρ∗ (ker(f1 |f2 )) = ker(f1 |f2 ) ⊗R S = ker(f1 ⊗ IS | f2 ⊗ IS ) = ker(ρ∗ (f1 ) |
ρ∗ (f2 )).

6

Carriegos, DeCastro & Muñoz-Castañeda

5

Product rings

Now we deal with the case of R = R1 × · · · × Rt being a finite direct product of rings.
In this case each factor ring Ri ∼
= ei R where ei = (0, ..., 0, 1, 0, ..., 0) is the ith structrual
∼ e1 R ⊕ · · · ⊕ et R and therefore each factor Ri ∼
idempotent of product. Hence R1 =
= ei R is
a flat R-algebra because it is projective due to it is a direct summand of the free R-module
R1 . This decomposition can be traslated to kernels of pairs of linear maps:
Theorem 5.1. If πi : R1 × · · · × Rt → Ri is the projection onto ith factor, then πi is
also structural R-algebra morphism and, for a given pair of R-linear maps fj : Mj → N ,
j = 1, 2 one has
ker(f1 | f2 ) ∼
=

t
M

ker(πi∗ (f1 ) | πi∗ (f2 ))

i=1

Proof. The universal property of product yields the natural isomorphism Φ which is unique
commutating both triangles in below natural diagram

πi∗

--

ker(πi∗ (f1 ) | πi∗ (f2 ))

p1

❞❞❞❞❞❞22
❞❞❞❞❞❞❞

L
Φ
ker(f1 | f2 ) ❴ ❴ ❴ ❴ ❴ ❴ ❴ ❴// ti=1 ker(πi∗ (f1 ) | πi∗ (f2 ))

❩❩❩❩❩❩p2❩
❩❩❩❩❩❩,,
11

ker(πj∗ (f1 ) | πj∗ (f2 ))

φ∗j

Now we conclude with the case of R being a finite product of fields. This case contains modular rings Z/mZ where m is a square-free integer and would be of interest in
convolutional coding.
Corollary 5.2. Let Ki be a field for each i and consider a ring R = K1 × · · · × Ks . Let
A ∈ Rp×q1 and B ∈ Rp×q2 be matrices. Then
ker(A | B) = e1 · ker(π1 (A) | π1 (B)) + · · · + es · ker(πs (A) | πs (B))
Notice that Theorem 2.4 applies to above case of R beign a finite product of fields,
hence one has the following result.
Corollary 5.3. Let Ki be a field for each i and consider a ring R = K1 × · · · × Ks . Let
A ∈ Rp×q1 and B ∈ Rp×q2 be matrices. Then
ker(A | B) =

ker(πs (A), πs (B))
ker(π1 (A), π1 (B))
⊕ ··· ⊕
ker(π1 (A))
ker(πs (A))

7

Kernel of a pair of linear maps

Above results might be explained with an example. Consider the modular integer ring
Z/30Z ∼
= Z/2× Z/3Z × Z/5Z, where isomorphism is given by Chinese Remainder Theorem
(a, b, c) 7→ unique x such that x = a(mod 2), x = b(mod 3), x = c(mod 5)
Thence structural idempotents are given by:
Z/2 × Z/3Z × Z/5Z

// Z/30

(1, 0, 0)

// 15

(0, 1, 0)

// 10

(0, 0, 1)

// 6

Thus the kernel might be recovered from local data on every factor field by using Corollary
5.2 with above structural idempotents e1 = 15, e2 = 10, and e3 = 6.
Note that this result can also be generalized to the case of polynomial matrices which
would be useful in the behavioral theory of linear systems and in particular to convolutional
codes.
Corollary 5.4. Consider matrices A(z), B(z) of adequate sizes, p × q1 and p × q2 respectively, and entries in R[z] where R = R1 × · · · × Rs is a product ring with structural
idempotents ei ∈ R. Then trajectories can be computed locally and glued together; that is
to say, one has
ker(A(z) | B(z)) = {u(z) | ∃x(z) : A(z)x(z) + B(z)u(z) = 0} =
= e1 ker(π1 (A)(z) | π1 (B)(z)) + · · · + es ker(πs (A)(z) | πs (B)(z))
Proof. Note that R[z] = (R1 × · · · × Rs )[z] ∼
= R1 [z] × · · · × Rs [z] and thus Ri [z] is a flat
R[z]-algebra. It only remains to detect structural morphism, which is a trivial exercise.
Then we conclude by using Theorem 5.1
To conclude note that if K is a field then K[z] is a principal ideal domain and thus
a Dedekind domain and hence hereditary. Thus by applying Theorem 3.1 one has the
following factorization result.
Corollary 5.5. Consider matrices A(z), B(z) of adequate sizes, p × q1 and p × q2 respectively, and entries in R[z] where R = K1 × · · · × Ks is a product of fields. Then
ker((A(z) | B(z)) =

ker(π1 (A)(z) | π1 (B)(z))
ker(π1 (A)(z) | π1 (B)(z))
⊕ ··· ⊕
ker(π1 (A)(z))
ker(π1 (A)(z))

8

Carriegos, DeCastro & Muñoz-Castañeda
Notice that the key point in above results is some kind of ”commutativity” between

the product of rings and extension from a ring to its ring of polynomials; that is to
say,R[z] = (R1 × · · · × Rs )[z] ∼
= R1 [z] × · · · × Rs [z], which assures that Ri [z] is a flat
R[z]-algebra. This phenomenon is also true for the extensions to formal power series
R 7→ R[[z]]; polynomial ring R[z, z −1 ]; formal power series R[[z, z −1 ]]; Puisseux series;
and, if Ri are domains, for extensions to rational fractions R 7→ R(z) and Laurent series
R 7→ R((z)). Thus we conjecture that Theorem 5.1 could be extended to these scenarios.
To conclude it is worth to note that factorization results à la Corollary 5.2 holds on
by assuring that factor rings Ri [z] (or respectively Ri [[z]], ...) are hereditary.

References
[1] M.F. Atiyah, I.G. McDonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra, Addison-Wesley,
1969.
[2] H. Bass, Algebraic K-theory, Benjamin, 1968.
[3] N. Bourbaki. Éléments de Mathématique, Algébre Conmutative, ch. 1 à 4, Masson,
1985.
[4] M.V. Carriegos, J.A. Hermida-Alonso, T. Sánchez-Giralda, The pointwise feedback
relation for linear dynamical systems over commutative rings, Lin. Algebra App.
279 (1998) 119–134.
[5] N. DeCastro, Clasificación Feedback de Sistemas y Códigos de Convolución. Aplicaciones en Cibernética, Teorı́a de Códigos y Criptografı́a, Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad
de León, 2016.
[6] M. Kuijper, R. Pinto, J.W. Polderman, Kernel representations for behaviors over finite
rings, Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory
of Networks and Systems, 2006, pp. 2494–2503.
[7] J. Rosenthal, On behaviors and convolutional codes, IEEE Transactions on Inform.
Theory 42(6), (1996), 1881–1891.
[8] C.A. Weibel, The K-book, an introduction to Algebraic K-theory, β-edition
(2013/02/23), http://www.math.rutgers.edu/∼weibel/Kbook/Kbook.pdf
[9] J.C. Willems, Paradigms and puzzles in the theory of dynamical systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 36(3) (1991), 259–294.
[10] E. Zerz, Behavioral systems theory: a survey, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 18(3),
(2008), 265–270.

