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

  • Thread starter Thread starter AKG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Stuck
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of T-invariant subspaces in the context of linear operators on finite-dimensional vector spaces. The original poster presents a series of results related to monic polynomials and their relationships with T-invariant subspaces, specifically focusing on the existence and uniqueness of such polynomials for elements outside these subspaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of T-invariance for subspaces and the existence of unique monic polynomials. They question whether certain assumptions about the invariance of subspaces hold true and discuss the conditions under which these results can be proven.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants examining various aspects of the problem. Some have suggested potential approaches involving projections and minimal polynomials, while others express uncertainty about the validity of their assumptions regarding T-invariance. There is no explicit consensus, but several lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of assumptions regarding the invariance of subspaces and the coefficients of polynomials, which are central to the discussion. The original poster and others are considering how these assumptions affect the validity of their arguments.

AKG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
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
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:
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?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K