arXiv:1603.06696v2 [math.RA] 19 Apr 2016

INVERTIBLE SUMS OF MATRICES
JUSTIN CHEN
Abstract. We give an elementary proof of a Caratheodory-type result on
the invertibility of a sum of matrices, due first to Facchini and Barioli. The
proof yields a polynomial identity, expressing the determinant of a large sum of
matrices in terms of determinants of smaller sums. Interpreting these results
over an arbitrary commutative ring gives a stabilization result for a filtered
family of ideals of determinants. Generalizing in another direction gives a
characterization of local rings. An analogous result for semilocal rings is also
given – interestingly, the semilocal case reduces to the case of matrices.

Let k be a field, and let A1 , . . . , Am ∈ Mn (k) be square matrices over k, for fixed
n, m ∈ N. Write [m] for the index set {1, . . . , m}, and for a subset S ⊆ [m], write
|S| for the cardinality of S.
TheoremX
1. If A1 + . . . + Am is invertible, then there exists S ⊆ [m] with |S| ≤ n
such that
Ai is invertible.
i∈S

Notice that the upper bound p ≤ n is the best possible: for the n elementary
matrices Eii , i = 1, . . . , n, E11 + . . . + Enn = idn is invertible, but any sum of
≤ n − 1 of the Eii is not invertible.
In proving Theorem 1, we may assume m > n (if m ≤ n, then take S = [m]),
which we do henceforth. With this, Theorem 1 is then a consequence of the following
polynomial identity:
Lemma 2. Let T := k[xiβγ | 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ β, γ ≤ n] be a polynomial ring over
k in mn2 indeterminates, and let Mi := (xiβγ )nβ,γ=1 ∈ Mn (T ) be generic matrices,
for i = 1, . . . , m. If m > n, then as polynomials (i.e. elements of T ),
!
X
X
|S|
(−1) det
Mi = 0.
i∈S

S⊆[m]

In particular,
det

X
m
i=1

Mi



∈

det

X
i∈S

Mi



!

S ⊆ [m], |S| ≤ n .

Lemma 2 implies Theorem 1: Suppose there exist A1 , . . . , Am ∈ Mn (k) with A1 +
. . . + Am invertible but every sum of ≤ n of the Ai ’s is not invertible. Write Ai =:
(aiβγ )nβ,γ=1 for i = 1, . . . , m (so aiβγ ∈ k). Let ϕ : T → k, ϕ(xiβγ ) = aiβγ be the
evaluation map, inducing ϕ
e : Mn (T ) →X
Mn (k), ϕ(M
e i ) =X
Ai . Since det isX
a polynomial in the entries of a matrix, ϕ(det(
Mi )) = det(ϕ(
e
Mi )) = det(
Ai ) for
i∈S

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 15A09, 13H99.
1

i∈S

i∈S

2

JUSTIN CHEN

every S ⊆ [m]. Applying ϕ to the containment in Lemma 2 implies that the nonzero
!

X 
X
m
S ⊆ [m], |S| ≤ n
Ai is contained in the ideal det
element det
Ai
i=1

i∈S

of k, but each generator is 0, a contradiction. Thus no such Ai ’s can exist.



The polynomial identity of Lemma 2 follows in turn from a combinatorial identity:
Lemma 3. For m, n ∈ N, m > n, let {zi,j | 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ n} be a set of mn
commuting indeterminates. Then (as polynomials in Z[zij ])
X

(−1)|S|

n X
Y

zi,j = 0.

j=1 i∈S

S⊆[m]

Lemma 3 implies Lemma 2: By definition, for an n × n matrix Y = (yβγ )nβ,γ=1 ,
det Y =

X

sgn(σ)

X

(−1)|S| det

X

Mi

i∈S

S⊆[m]



=

X

(−1)|S|

S⊆[m]

=

X

yjσ(j) .

j=1

σ∈Sn

Hence

n
Y

sgn(σ)

σ∈Sn

X

sgn(σ)

n X
Y

σ∈Sn

j=1 i∈S

X

n X
Y

(−1)|S|

S⊆[m]

xijσ(j)
xijσ(j)

j=1 i∈S

so for fixed σ ∈ Sn , setting zi,j := xijσ(j) in Lemma 3 gives the desired vanishing.
The second statement of Lemma 2 follows from the first, by induction
on m: the
!

X 
X
m
S ⊆ [m], |S| < m , which implies
Mi ∈ det
Mi
identity yields det
i=1

i∈S

both the base case (by taking m = n + 1) and the inductive step.



Proof of Lemma 3: As every monomial in the sum is of the form zi1 ,1 . . . zin ,n for
some ij ∈ [m], it suffices to show that the coefficient of zi1 ,1 . . . zin ,n is 0, for any
fixed choice of i1 , . . . , in ∈ [m]. Now zi1 ,1 . . . zin ,n appears for a particular S ⊆ [m]
iff {i1 , . . . , in } ⊆ S, and for such an S, zi1 ,1 . . . zin ,n appears exactly once, with
coefficient (−1)|S| . Thus the coefficient of zi1 ,1 . . . zin ,n is
X
X
′
(−1)|S |+n
(−1)|S| =
S ′ ⊆[m]\{i1 ,...,in }

{i1 ,...,in }⊆S⊆[m]

=

m−n
X
l=0


m−n
(−1)l+n
l

= (−1)n (1 − 1)m−n = 0.



Remark. It has come to our attention that the statement of Theorem 1 has in
fact appeared before, posed as a problem with accompanying solution in [4]. Also,
a version of the first statement of Lemma 2 can be found in [3, Theorem 2.2]. The
solution given in [4] follows a slightly different approach than the proof given here,
as well as using different lemmas. We have chosen to present the reasoning here for
its originality, and to emphasize the simple yet pleasing proof of Lemma 3.

INVERTIBLE SUMS OF MATRICES

3

It should be noted that the theorems of both [3] and [4] are stated only for
fields. To the best of our knowledge, the ideal-theoretic results below have not been
observed before. Other studies of determinants (and characteristic polynomials) of
sums of matrices can be found in [1], [6].
Now let R be a ring (henceforth all rings, except for matrix rings, are always
commutative with 1 6= 0). It is natural to ask: to what extent do the above results
generalize to Mn (R)? We first give a generalization of Lemma 2:
Proposition 4. Let R be a ring, n ∈ N, I an index set (possibly infinite). For any
collection of matrices {Ai | i ∈ I} ⊆ Mn (R), consider the R-ideals
!
X 
Ij := det
S ⊆ I, |S| ≤ j
Ai
i∈S

for j ∈ N. Then 0 = I0 ⊆ I1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ In = In+1 = . . . is an ascending chain of
ideals which stabilizes at position n.
Proof. It is immediate from the definition that Ij ⊆ Ij+1 for all j ∈ N, so it suffices
to show that Im ⊆ In for m > n by induction. This follows from the proof of Lemma
2: since the identity in Lemma 2 only involves coefficients of ±1, it continues to
hold in the polynomial ring Z[xiβγ ]. Applying the universal map Z → R shows that
the identity holds also in R[xiβγ ], and specializing to R gives the result.

Theorem 5. The following are equivalent for a ring R:
(i) R is local, i.e. has a unique maximal ideal m
(ii) For all (equivalently some) n ≥ 1 and A1 , . . . , Am ∈X
Mn (R) with A1 + . . . +
Am invertible, there exists S ⊆ [m] with |S| ≤ n such that
Ai is invertible.
i∈S

Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): First, note that for any A ∈ Mn (R), A is invertible iff det A is
a unit in R. Form the ideals Ij for j ∈ [m] as above. By hypothesis, Im contains a
unit, so by Proposition 4 so does In . Then one of the generators of In is a unit: if
not, then each generator would be in m, hence In would be as well, a contradiction.
(Alternate proof: applying R ։ R/m reduces to Theorem 1).
(ii) =⇒ (i): Suppose R has two distinct maximal ideals m1 , m2 . Then there
exists m1 ∈ m1 , m2 ∈ m2 with m1 + m2 = 1. For an n such that (ii) holds, let Ai :=
diag(0, . . . , m1 , . . . , 0) ∈ Mn (R) be the diagonal matrix with m1 in the ith spot and
0 elsewhere, for i = 1, . . . , n, and An+1 := m2 ·idn . Then A1 +. . .+An+1 = idn , but
any sum of ≤ n of the Ai ’s has determinant either 0, mn1 , or mj2 for some 1 ≤ j ≤ n,
hence is not invertible.

Example. (1): Proposition 4 implies that if In ⊆ J for some R-ideal J, then
so is Im for all m; e.g. if A1 , A2 , A3 , A4 ∈ M3 (Z), and any sum of at most 3
has determinant divisible by 10, then det(A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 ) is also divisible
by 10. In particular, taking J = In generalizes Theorem 5: for any ring R and
A1 , . . . , Am ∈ Mn (R), if In 6= R then no (distinct) sum of the Ai ’s is invertible.
(2): For generic matrices, the ideals Ij quickly become infeasible to compute.
The smallest nontrivial case is n = 2: here R = k[xiβγ | 1 ≤ i ≤ 3, 1 ≤ β, γ ≤ 2] is a
polynomial ring in 12 variables over a field k, and Ai = (xiβγ ) ∈ M2 (R), i = 1, 2, 3.
Then I1 is a complete intersection prime ideal of codimension 3, whereas I2 has
two minimal primes of codimension 5, and one embedded prime of codimension 7.

4

JUSTIN CHEN

Theorem 5 says, in some sense, that the question of when a large sum of matrices
is invertible is determined by the 1 × 1 case (precisely) when the ring is local.
Motivated by this, we now shift perspectives and ask: if the ring is semilocal (i.e.
has only finitely many maximal ideals), when is a large sum of ring elements (= 1×1
matrices) invertible? The following result is interesting in that it follows from a
result for (a specific class of) noncommutative rings, but the proof is not obtained
by imposing commutativity verbatim!
Theorem 6. Let R be a ring with n maximal ideals (say mSpec R = {m1 , . . . , mn }),
and let a1 , . . . , am ∈ R with a1 + . . . + am ∈ R× . If char R/mi = char R/mj for all
i,
j (e.g. if R contains a field), then there exists S ⊆ [m] with |S| ≤ n such that
X
ai ∈ R × .
i∈S

Proof. For any ring S and a ∈ S, a ∈ S × iff ā ∈ (S/ Rad(S))× , where Rad(S) is
the Jacobson radical of S, i.e. the intersection of all maximal ideals of S. For R as
above, Rad(R) = m1 ∩ . . . ∩ mn is a finite intersection, so by Chinese Remainder
R/ Rad(R) ∼
= R/m1 × . . . × R/mn . Thus we may assume R is a direct product of n
fields k1 , . . . , kn .
Now by assumption char ki = char kj for all i, j, so there exists a large field K
such that ki ֒→ K for all i (e.g. any residue field of k1 ⊗k . . . ⊗k kn , where k is the
(common) prime field; cf. [2], Section V.2.4, Cor. to Prop. 4). There is a ring map
ϕ : R → Mn (K), sending (r1 , . . . , rn ) ∈ k1 × . . . × kn 7→ diag(r1 , . . . , rn ) ∈ Mn (K).
Then r ∈ R is a unit iff ϕ(r) is a unit in Mn (K), so applying Theorem 1 to
ϕ(a1 ), . . . , ϕ(am ) ∈ Mn (K) gives the result.

Remark. If n = 2, then Theorem 6 holds without assuming that char R/m1 =
char R/m2 : if a1 , a2 ∈ k1 × k2 are such that none of a1 , a2 , 1 − a1 , 1 − a2 is a unit,
then a1 , a2 ∈ {(1, 0), (0, 1)}, so either a1 + a2 or 1 − (a1 + a2 ) is a unit.
In general though, the hypothesis of equal characteristics in Theorem 6 is crucial,
as the following examples show:
Example. In F2 × F3 × k (where k is any field), the elements
a1 = (0, 1, 1),
a2 = a3 = (1, −1, 0),
a4 = 1 − (a1 + a2 + a3 )
satisfy a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 = 1, but no subset of {a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 } of size ≤ 3 sums to
a unit (to mentally verify this, it suffices to check that any nonempty subsum of
{a1 , a2 , a3 } contains both a coordinate equal to 0 and a coordinate equal to 1).
There are also (many) such examples with all elements ai distinct: in F2 × F3 ×
k1 × k2 (where k1 , k2 are any fields), the elements
a1 = (0, 0, 0, 1),
a2 , a3 , a4 = (1, −1, 0, ∗),
a5 = 1 − (a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 ) = (0, 1, 1, ·)
also sum to a unit, although no proper subset of them does. Here each ∗ can be
taken to be any element in k2 , so if |k2 | > 2, then the ai can be chosen to be
pairwise distinct.

INVERTIBLE SUMS OF MATRICES

5

Finally, we record some additional interesting consequences of Lemma 2. The
key feature of the next proposition is nonemptyness of the subset S:
Proposition 7. Let R be a ring, n ∈ N, and pick any A1 , . . . , An ∈ Mn (R).
Then for any B ∈ !
Mn (R) with det B 6= 0, there exists ∅ =
6 S ⊆ [n] such that
X 
X 
det
Ai + B − det
Ai 6= 0.
i∈S

i∈S

Proof. This follows from the identity
!!
X 
X 
X
|S|
(−1)
det
= det B
Ai − det
Ai + B
∅6=S⊆[n]

i∈S

i∈S

which results from applying Lemma 2 to A1 , . . . , An , B.



We end with a geometric interpretation, in terms of additively generated point
configurations on cones over projective hypersurfaces:
2

Proposition 8. Let k be a field, char k = 0, n ∈ N, and let X = V (detn ) ⊆ Ank be
2
the affine cone over the determinantal hypersurface. Let ∆ ⊆ An be an n-simplex
with first barycentric subdivision ∆. If all vertices of ∆ other than the centroid lie
on X, then in fact the centroid of ∆ also lies on X.


1 X
pi
Proof. Let p0 , . . . , pn be the vertices of ∆. Each vertex of ∆ is of the form
|S|
i∈S
X
for some ∅ =
6 S ⊆ [n], which (by homogeneity) lies on X iff
pi does. Viewing
i∈S

each pi as an n × n matrix over k and applying Lemma 2 gives the result.



In fact, the proof of [4] shows that Lemma 2 holds for any homogeneous polynomial, so Proposition 8 actually holds for any cone X (in any affine space) cut out
by a degree n polynomial (and thus also for any intersection of such cones).
Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank Joe Kileel for valuable
discussions, in particular for contributing to the proof of Lemma 3; as well as
David Eisenbud for helpful comments. The examples following Theorems 5 and 6
were carried out with the help of Macaulay2.
References
[1] S. A. Amitsur. On the Characteristic Polynomial of a Sum of Matrices. Linear and Multilinear
Algebra 8(3), p. 177–182, 1980.
[2] N. Bourbaki. Éléments de mathématique. Algèbre, chapitres 4 à 7. Masson, Paris, 1981.
[3] R. S. Costas-Santos. On the elementary symmetric functions of a sum of matrices. Journal of
Algebra, Number Theory: Advances and Applications 1(2), p. 99–112, 2009.
[4] A. Facchini, F. Barioli, R. Chapman, and R. M. Carroll. Nonsingular Sums of Matrices: 10784.
American Mathematical Monthly 109(7), p. 664–666, 2002.
[5] D. R. Grayson and M. E. Stillman. Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic
geometry. Available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
[6] C. Reutenauer and M. Schützenberger. A Formula for the Determinant of a Sum of Matrices.
Letters in Mathematical Physics 13, p. 299–302, 1987.
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720
U.S.A
E-mail address: jchen@math.berkeley.edu

