How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
For a matrix over a field, extending the scalar field does not change its minimal polynomial
Statement
Let be a field extension and let . Whether is viewed over or over , its minimal polynomial is the same element of . This includes , when both minimal polynomials are .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field extension and a matrix .
A field extension identifies with a subfield of (Field extensions, generated subrings , generated subfields , and simple extensions).
A finite list is linearly independent when its only vanishing finite linear combination has all coefficients zero (Linear independence: a finite list is independent when forces every , and a subset is independent when every injective finite list into is independent).
The minimal polynomial is the least-degree monic annihilator, equivalently the unique monic generator of all annihilating polynomials (The annihilator ideal is nonzero and has a unique monic generator; if and only if ).
Proof
Every polynomial over that annihilates still annihilates it over . Hence the -minimal polynomial divides the -minimal polynomial and has no larger degree.
Conversely, let be a nonzero annihilator of . Choose a maximal -linearly independent sublist from the finite list of nonzero coefficients ; maximality makes it span all the . Write with .
The equality holds entrywise. Since every entry of each inner matrix lies in and the are -independent, every matrix is zero. At least one corresponding polynomial is nonzero and has degree at most .
Applying step 2.1 to the -minimal polynomial gives a nonzero -annihilator of no larger degree. Thus the two minimal polynomials have equal degree; step 1.1 and monicity then force equality. For , [L3] gives over either field.
Depends on
- The annihilator ideal is nonzero and has a unique monic generator; $p(T)=0$ if and only if $\mu_T\mid p$
- Field extensions, generated subrings $F[S]$, generated subfields $F(S)$, and simple extensions
- Linear independence: a finite list $v : n \to V$ is independent when $\sum_{i<n} \lambda_i v_i = 0_V$ forces every $\lambda_i = 0_F$, and a subset $S \subseteq V$ is independent when every injective finite list into $S$ is independent
Used by
- Semisimple endomorphisms as endomorphisms diagonalisable over an algebraic closure, and nilpotent endomorphisms Definition
- Complexification preserves the characteristic and minimal polynomials of a finite-dimensional real operator Theorem
- Over every extension field, a scalar is an eigenvalue of the extended matrix exactly when it is a root of the minimal polynomial Theorem
- The minimal and characteristic polynomials have exactly the same monic irreducible factors Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
20 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Keith Conrad, Potential Diagonalizability, Theorem 4(1) (standard reference, not scraped)