If M∈M2(R), we have
det(M−xI2)=x2−tr(M)x+det(M),∀x∈R.(1)
Let A∈M2(R) be a matrix satisfying the hypothesis. From (1) we obtain
tr(A2014)=tr(A2016)=0.(2)
Using the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, we obtain
A2−tr(A)A+det(A)I2=O2.(3)
We analyze several cases.
If tr(A)=0, then (3) implies A2=−det(A)I2, whence A2014=(−det(A))1007I2. From (2) it results det(A)=0.
If det(A)=0, then this time (3) implies A2=tr(A)A. Inductively, An+1=trn(A)A, ∀n∈N∗. It follows that tr(An)=trn(A), ∀n∈N∗. As a special case, using (2), 0=tr(A2014)=tr2014(A), whence tr(A)=0.
If tr(A)=0 and det(A)=0. From (3), A2016−tr(A)A2015+det(A)A2014=O2. Then tr(A2016)−tr(A)tr(A2015)+det(A)tr(A2014)=0. Using (2) and our assumption, we get tr(A2015)=0. From (3), it follows that
tr(An)=det(A)1[tr(A)tr(An+1)−tr(An+2)],n∈N∗.
Thus, starting with tr(A2014)=tr(A2015)=0, we obtain recursively tr(A2013)=0, tr(A2012)=0, ..., tr(A)=0, a contradiction. It follows that tr(A)=0 and det(A)=0.
Finally, from (3) it follows that A2=O2, hence An=O2, ∀n≥2. Then, for n≥2, we have det(An−I2)=det(−I2)=1=det(I2)=det(An+I2). For n=1, from (1), det(A−I2)=1=det(A+I2).