Why is A(w) - A_R(w) in W_1 in the Triangulization Theorem?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TomMe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Triangulization Theorem in linear algebra, specifically addressing the relationship between a linear transformation A and its restriction A_R on an invariant subspace W_2. Participants are exploring the implications of the statement that A(w) - A_R(w) belongs to W_1 for w in W_2, and its significance in the proof of the theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the context of the Triangulization Theorem and the definitions of the linear transformation A and its restriction A_R.
  • Another participant suggests working out the expression A - A_R with respect to the basis to clarify the relationship.
  • A participant expresses confusion about how to subtract the two transformations due to differing coordinate numbers and seeks clarification on the definitions involved.
  • One participant realizes that to apply A_R on w in W_2, they need to convert w to its coordinates with respect to the basis of W_2, leading to a potential simplification in the subtraction process.
  • A participant proposes that the subtraction results in a coordinate vector where only the first coordinate may be non-zero, indicating that it belongs to W_1.
  • Another participant questions the importance of this relationship for the proof, indicating a need for further clarification on its role in the overall argument.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the significance of the relationship A(w) - A_R(w) in W_1, with some proposing interpretations while others remain uncertain about its importance in the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached a consensus on the implications of the relationship A(w) - A_R(w) and its role in the proof, indicating ongoing exploration of the topic.

TomMe
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Suppose [tex]A: V -> V[/tex] a linear transformation, with dim(V) = n. If the characteristic polynomial [tex]f_{A}[/tex] of this matrix can be fully split up into linear factors over R, then there exists a basis of V so that the matrix of A is upper triangular.

For me to get to the point I don't understand that well I have to give part of the proof:

So suppose [tex]\lambda_{1}[/tex] is an eigenvalue of A and [tex]v_{1}[/tex] an eigenvector with this eigenvalue. Then [tex]W_{1} := <v_{1}>[/tex] is an A-invariant subspace of V.
Expand [tex]v_{1}[/tex] to a basis [tex]v_{1}, v_{2},..,v_{n}[/tex] of V. Then [tex]W_{2}:=<v_{2},..,v_{n}>[/tex] and [tex]V = W_{1} \oplus W_{2}[/tex]
The matrix of A will be [tex]\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda_{1}&*\\ 0&R \end{array}\right)[/tex]

Now suppose [tex]A_{R}[/tex] is the linear transformation of [tex]W_{2}[/tex] with matrix R with regard to basis [tex]v_{2},..,v_{n}[/tex]

The proof now says that for all [tex]w[/tex] [tex]\epsilon[/tex] [tex]W_{2}: A(w) - A_{R}(w)[/tex] [tex]\epsilon[/tex] [tex]W_{1}[/tex].
I don't understand why this is the case, and I have no idea why this is important for the completion of the proof because it's not explicitly mentioned further on.

Can someone help me out here? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
just work it out: what is A-A_r with respect to that basis?
 
Okay..I have to substract 2 transformations then. How do I do that? I know that per definition (f+g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), but what are f(x) and g(x) in this case?

I can see the coordinates of both bases, but they have a different number of coordinate numbers, right? So I can't substract them..

Don't see it. :frown:
 
Oh wait, if I use [tex]A_{r}[/tex] on [tex]w[/tex] [tex]\epsilon[/tex] [tex]W_{2}[/tex], I have to convert that w to its coordinates with respect to the basis of [tex]W_{2}[/tex].

Then these n-1 coordinate numbers match the last n-1 coordinate numbers of A(w) with respect to the basis of V, is that right?

So if I substract these coordinates, I get a coordinate vector with only the first coordinate number possibly not zero, so that is an element of [tex]W_{1}[/tex].

Is that the way to see it?
 
Okay..assuming I'm right, can anyone tell me why this is important for the proof? Because I can't see it.

Proof continued (proof by induction on the dimension):
----------------------
By calculating [tex]|tI_{p} - A|[/tex] using cofactor expansion for the first column we get [tex]f_{A}(t) = (t - \lambda_{1}) f_{A_{R}}(t)[/tex].

Thus [tex]f_{A_{R}}(t)[/tex] also fully splits into linear factors over R (real numbers).

The induction hypothesis, applied on the (p-1)-dimensional vectorspace [tex]W_{2}[/tex] and the linear transormation [tex]A_{R}[/tex], now gives a basis [tex]v_{2}',..,v_{n}'[/tex] of [tex]W_{2}[/tex] so that the matrix R' of [tex]A_{R}[/tex] with respect to this new basis is upper triangular.

The vectors [tex]v_{1},..,v_{n}'[/tex] now also form a basis of V and the matrix of A with respect to this basis is of the form

[tex]\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda_{1}&*'\\ 0&R' \end{array}\right)[/tex]

which is upper triangular. QED
----------------------

Thanks in advance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K