How Do T-Invariant Subspaces Affect Polynomial Operators in Linear Algebra?

In summary, the author proves that if g_1(t) is the minimal polynomial of a linear operator T on a finite dimensional vector space V, then for any polynomial h(t), if h(T) = 0, then g_1(t) divides h(t).
  • #1
AKG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,567
4
T be a linear operator (I think they mean "Let T be a linear...") on a finite-dimensional vector space V, and let [itex]W_1[/itex] be a T-invariant subspace of V. Let [itex]x \in V[/itex] such that [itex]x \notin W_1[/itex]. Prove the following results:
  • There exists a unique monic polynomial [itex]g_1(t)[/itex] of least positive degree such that [itex]g_1(T)(x) \in W_1[/itex].
  • If h(t) is a polynomial for which [itex]h(T)(x) \in W_1[/itex], then [itex]g_1(t)[/itex] divides h(t).
  • [itex]g_1(t)[/itex] divides the minimal and characteristic polynomials of T.
  • Let [itex]W_2[/itex] be a T-invariant subspace of V such that [itex]W_2 \subseteq W_1[/itex], and [itex]g_2(t)[/itex] be the unique monic polynomial of least degree such that [itex]g_2(T)(x) \in W_2[/itex]. Then [itex]g_2(t)[/itex] divides [itex] g_2(t)[/itex].
  • If [itex]\beta[/itex] is a basis of V, and [itex]\beta _{W_1}[/itex] is a basis of [itex]W_1[/itex] such that [itex]\beta _{W_1} \subseteq \beta[/itex], then define [itex]W_1 \prime = Span(\beta - \beta _{W_1})[/itex]. [itex]V = W_1 \oplus W_1 \prime[/itex]. [itex]\forall v \in V, \exists w_1 \in W_1, w_1 \prime \in W_1 \prime[/itex] such that [itex]v = w_1 + w_1 \prime[/itex].

    [tex]g_1(T)(x) = g_1(T)(w_1 + w_1 \prime) = g_1(T)(w_1) + g_1(T)(w_1 \prime)[/tex]

    Now, if the restriction of T to [itex]W_1 \prime[/itex] were an operator on [itex]W_1 \prime[/itex], then there would be a unique monic polynomial of least degree such that [itex]g_1(T)(w_1 \prime) = 0[/itex], namely the minimal polynomial of T restricted to [itex]W_1 \prime[/itex]. Then, if [itex]g_1(t)[/itex] is a polynomial over the same field that underlies [itex]W_1[/itex], I can assert that [itex]g_1(T)(w_1) \in W_1[/itex], and thus the result is proved. Can I prove these "if"s? If not, is there another way to prove the result? I haven't looked at the rest of it yet.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, assuming that it's true that [itex]W_1'[/itex] is T-invariant, more can be proven:

(b) If [itex]h(T)(x) \in W_1[/itex], [itex]h(T)(w_1') = 0\ \forall w_1' \in W_1'[/itex], so if [itex]T_{W_1'}[/itex] is the restriction of T to [itex]W_1'[/itex], then [itex]h(T_{W_1'}) = T_0[/itex]. My book proves that if [itex]g_1(t)[/itex] is the minimal polynomial of a linear operator [itex]T_{W_1'}[/itex] on a finite-dimensional vector space [itex]W_1'[/itex], then for any polynomial h(t), if [itex]h(T_{W_1'}) = T_0[/itex], [itex]g_1(t)[/itex] divides [itex]h(t)[/itex]. Of course, insted of "[itex]W_1'[/itex]", my book proves it for "V", and instead of the minimal polynomial being "[itex]g_1(t)[/itex]" it calls it "p(t)" in the proof, but the result still holds.

(c) It suffices to show that [itex]g_1(t)[/itex] divides the minimal polynomial of T, since the minimal polynomial of T already divides the characteristic polynomial of T (a corollary of the theorem from my book that I just mentioned). Let p(t) be the minimal polynomial of T. Then,

[tex]\forall v \in V,\ v = w_1 + w_1',\ w_1 \in W_1,\ w_1' \in W_1':[/tex]

[tex]p(T)(v) = p(T)(w_1) + p(T)(w_1') = 0[/tex]

Since [itex]W_1[/itex] and (supposedly) [itex]W_1'[/itex] are T-invariant, and since (supposedly) p(t) takes coefficients from the same field that underlies [itex]W_1[/itex] and [itex]W_1'[/itex], we have the above equality holding if and only if:

[tex]p(T)(w_1) = 0,\ p(T)(w_1') = 0[/tex]

Since this must be true for all [itex]w_1'[/itex], [itex]p(T_{W_1'}) = T_0[/itex], so, from (b), [itex]g_1(t) | p(t)[/itex].

(d) Define [itex]W_2'[/itex] in a way similar to how [itex]W_1'[/itex] was defined. Let [itex]g_2(t)[/itex] be the minimal polynomial of T restricted to [itex]W_2'[/itex]. Then it is the unique polynomial which satisfies the hypotheses, and since [itex]W_2 \subseteq W_1[/itex], [itex]g_1(t) | g_2(t)[/itex] by (b).

All of this is pretty simple, but it all rests on two (huge) assumptions, mainly the assumption that if [itex]W_1[/itex] is T-invariant, then so is [itex]W_1'[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I think I'm on to something I can use, but too tired to figure out exactly what to do with it. Anyways, define S to be the projection of V on [itex]W_1[/itex], and U to be the projection of V on [itex]W_1 \prime[/itex]. If we define [itex]g_1(t)[/itex] to be the minimal polynomial of UT, I think we'll have something.

T = ST + UT
[itex]g_1(T) = g_1(ST + UT)[/itex]
[itex]g_1(T) = a_n(ST + UT)^n + \dots a_0I[/itex]

Now if any power of ST is composed with UT, we will get zero since SU = 0, so:

[itex]g_1(T)= g_1(ST) + g_1(UT) = g_1(ST)[/itex].

Now UT really is an operator on the vector space [itex]W_1 \prime[/itex], that is, [itex]W_1 \prime[/itex] really is UT-invariant. I believe the rest should hold with a few adjustments. Now, is it problematic that I assume that p(t) takes coefficients from the same field as the one that underlies the subspaces?
 
  • #4
AKG said:
Can I prove these "if"s? If not, is there another way to prove the result? I haven't looked at the rest of it yet.[/list]

No you can't. V any vector space, [tex]W_1[/tex] any non-trivial subspace, T the projection map on [tex]W_1[/tex]. You can't pick a [tex]W_2[/tex] in the manner you describe to be T-invariant.

Think quotient space.
 

1. What is the best approach to solve this Algebra problem?

The best approach to solving any Algebra problem is to start by understanding the problem and identifying the unknown variables. Then, use the appropriate formulas and techniques to manipulate the equations and solve for the unknown variable.

2. Why am I having trouble understanding this Algebra problem?

There could be several reasons why you are having trouble understanding an Algebra problem. It could be due to a lack of familiarity with the concepts or not having a strong foundation in Algebra. It could also be because the problem is complex and requires a deeper understanding of the subject.

3. What are some tips for solving Algebra problems more efficiently?

One tip for solving Algebra problems efficiently is to practice regularly and familiarize yourself with different types of problems. It is also helpful to break down the problem into smaller, more manageable steps and to double-check your work as you go along.

4. How can I check if my answer to an Algebra problem is correct?

You can check your answer to an Algebra problem by plugging it back into the original equation and seeing if it satisfies the given conditions. You can also use online tools or ask a teacher or tutor to verify your answer.

5. What are some common mistakes to avoid when solving Algebra problems?

Some common mistakes to avoid when solving Algebra problems include not following the proper order of operations, making errors in calculations, and misinterpreting the given information. It is also important to be careful with signs and to double-check your work for accuracy.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
793
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
618
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
8K
Back
Top