Proof: Linear Algebra - U Invariant Under Every Operator on V

In summary, the conversation was about proving or giving a counterexample to the statement "If U is a subspace of V that is invariant under every operator on V, then U={0} or U=V." The conversation included discussing a counterexample and a possible proof, as well as clarifying concepts such as linear transformations and bases. Ultimately, it was agreed that the statement is true for all choices of U except when U=V or U={0}.
  • #1
evilpostingmong
339
0

Homework Statement


Prove or give a counterexample: If U is a subspace of V that is invariant
under every operator on V, then U={0} or U=V.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Counterexample: Suppose dimV=n and dimU=m with m<n.
let u=u1+...+um in U. Since u1+...+um=u1+...+um+...+0n
we can apply any T and get T(u1)+...+T(um)+..+T(0n)
=c1u1+...+cmum+cm+1*0+...+cn*0=c1u1+...+cmum in U.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It looks like you are claiming to prove that ANY proper subspace of V is invariant under any ANY operator T. Does that really seem likely?? Do you really think for ANY operator T, that T(u1)=c1*u1?? Show me an operator T and a subspace U where that is NOT true. Be concrete. Work in say R^3 with basis {e1,e2,e3}. Pick say, U=span{e1}. Define an operator T such that U is not invariant.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Dick said:
It looks like you are claiming to prove that ANY proper subspace of V is invariant under any ANY operator T. Does that really seem likely?? Do you really think for ANY operator T, that T(u1)=c1*u1?? Show me an operator T and a subspace U where that is NOT true. Be concrete. Work in say R^3 with basis {e1,e2,e3}. Pick say, U=span{e1}. Define an operator T such that U is not invariant.

T(e1)=T(e1)+T(0)+T(0)=0*e1+ c1*0+c2*0=0 So T maps from U to {0}.
 
  • #4
evilpostingmong said:
T(e1)=T(e1)+T(0)+T(0)=0*e1+ c1*0+c2*0=0 So T maps from U to {0}.

But what's T(e1)?. Look, you can define a linear transformation by giving the values of T(e1), T(e2) and T(e3). Here's an example. Define S by S(e1)=e2, S(e2)=0 and S(e3)=0. Is U=span{e1} invariant under S?
 
  • #5
Dick said:
But what's T(e1)?. Look, you can define a linear transformation by giving the values of T(e1), T(e2) and T(e3). Here's an example. Define S by S(e1)=e2, S(e2)=0 and S(e3)=0. Is U=span{e1} invariant under S?

Oh okay e2 is not in U so you didn't map from U to U.
Now I will prove that U={0} or V.
For T to map from U to U under any transformation T,
let u=0 so T(u)=0 so all members in the rangeT are
0 and for the domain to match the range, U={0}.
So we mapped from {0} to {0}. And U can also be V
to be invariant under T since we map from V to V if
we let U=V.
 
  • #6
I think you got the point of the example S, but your 'proof' doesn't convey that. It looks like you just defined T to be the zero map, T(v)=0 for any v. ANY subspace is invariant under that map. Why? The point to the example was that given a subspace U, if I can find a vector v that is not in U, I can define a linear transformation T that maps a nonzero vector in U to v. Try and use the example to model a proof for a general U. You may want to pick a specially chosen basis for V. Can you start?
 
  • #7
Dick said:
I think you got the point of the example S, but your 'proof' doesn't convey that. It looks like you just defined T to be the zero map, T(v)=0 for any v. ANY subspace is invariant under that map. Why? The point to the example was that given a subspace U, if I can find a vector v that is not in U, I can define a linear transformation T that maps a nonzero vector in U to v. Try and use the example to model a proof for a general U. You may want to pick a specially chosen basis for V. Can you start?
Basis for V <v1...vn> basis for U <v1...vm>.
Let m<n.
Now, a possible T maps vi to vm+1 1[tex]\leq[/tex]i[tex]\leq[/tex]m. Since vm+1
is not within U's basis, U is not invariant under T.
 
  • #8
evilpostingmong said:
Basis for V <v1...vn> basis for U <v1...vm>.
Let m<n.
Now, a possible T maps vi to vm+1 1[tex]\leq[/tex]i[tex]\leq[/tex]m. Since vm+1
is not within U's basis, U is not invariant under T.

That's it! Simple, isn't it? Now for what choices of U is this impossible? I.e. what happens if m=n or m=0?
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Dick said:
That's it! Simple, isn't it? Now for what choices of U is this impossible? I.e. what happens if m=n or m=0?
let m=n. Basis for U=<v1...vm>. Since U is a subspace of V, <v1...vm> is in the basis
of V. But since dimU=dimV, U=V. Now we can map T(vi) to vn or "lower" without falling out
of the basis for U.
let m=0. Basis for U=<0>. T(0)=c*0=0. Since 0 is in {0}, we mapped from {0} to {0}.
 
  • #10
I guess. But it's not so much that you "CAN map T(vi) to vn or "lower" without falling out
of the basis", you can always do that, it's that you CAN'T map T(vi) outside of the basis.
 
  • #11
That's what I was thinking you were thinking. Expressing yourself clearly takes some practice. Keep practicing.
 
  • #12
I deleted that message, sorry lol.
That's the thing with abstract concepts, I can understand, but can't express.
Alright, were done here.
 

What is a U-invariant subspace?

A U-invariant subspace is a subspace of a vector space V that remains unchanged under the action of any linear operator U on V. In other words, if a vector v belongs to the U-invariant subspace, then U(v) will also belong to the subspace.

Why is it important to study U-invariant subspaces?

U-invariant subspaces play a crucial role in understanding the behavior of linear operators on a vector space. They provide a way to break down the vector space into smaller, more manageable subspaces, which can then be studied individually. This leads to a better understanding of the properties of the linear operator U.

How can we determine if a subspace is U-invariant?

To determine if a subspace is U-invariant, we can use the definition of U-invariance: if for any vector v in the subspace, U(v) is also in the subspace. This can be checked by applying U to a basis of the subspace and seeing if the resulting vectors are still in the subspace.

Can a subspace be U-invariant under some operators but not others?

Yes, it is possible for a subspace to be U-invariant under some operators but not others. This depends on the specific properties of the subspace and the operator. For example, a subspace may be U-invariant under one operator but not under another because of the different ways the operators act on the subspace.

How does the concept of U-invariant subspaces relate to linear independence?

U-invariant subspaces and linear independence are closely related concepts. A subspace that is U-invariant is also linearly independent, meaning that none of its vectors can be written as a linear combination of the other vectors in the subspace. Additionally, understanding U-invariant subspaces can help us determine the linear independence of a set of vectors in a vector space.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
401
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
783
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
600
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
0
Views
441
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
449
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
607
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
582
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top