About the invariance of similar linear operators and their minimal polynomial

sanctifier
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
About the invariance of similar linear operators and their minimal polynomial

Notations:
F denotes a field
V denotes a vector space over F
L(V) denotes a vector space whose members are linear operators from V to V itself and its field is F, then L(V) is an algebra where multiplication is composition of functions.
τ, σ, φ denote distinct linear operators contained in L(V)
m?(x) denotes the minimal polynomial of the linear operator "?"
~ denotes the similarity of the left and right operand, e.g., if τ ~ σ, then τ = φσφ-1

Question:
If τ ~ σ are similar linear operators on V, then mτ(x) = mσ(x), i.e., the minimal polynomial is an invariant under similarity of operators.

I wonder how it's proved.

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Use dummy variables and factor them wisely, here is a taste

\alpha = \alpha\varphi\varphi^{-1}, \alpha\in\mathbb{F},\varphi\in\mathbb{V}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because I am too cool!

just kidding, it says alpha = alpha*phi*phi^(-1) and alpha in F and phi in V.
 
I still don't understand.
For example, suppose mτ(x) = s1+s2τ+s3τ2 = 0 and τ = φσφ-1,

then mτ(x) = s1+s2φσφ-1+s3φ2σ2-1)2 =0,

multiply (φ2)-1 on the left and φ2 on the right of the both sides of mτ(x)

we will get s1+s2φ-1σφ+s3σ2 = 0,
this doesn't equal to s1+s2σ+s3σ2 = 0, does it?

Ah, yes, now I know where I made a mistake, τ2 ≠φ2σ2-1)2

since τ2 = (φσφ-1)2 = φσφ-1φσφ-1
= φσ2φ-1,

then multiply φ-1 on the left and φ on the right of of the both sides of the equation mτ(x) = s1+s2φσφ-1+s3φσ2φ-1=0

we will get s1+s2σ+s3σ2 = 0

The property that τ2 = φσ2φ-1 I've explored before reaching this theorem, it seems I need more practice.

Thanks for reply, trambolin.

There are some other questions I posted in "Linear & Abstract Algebra" with no replies yet, maybe you can help me again, thanks a lot!

(This is not my mother language, please forgive the grammar mistakes I've made)
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top