All eigenvalues 0 implies nilpotent

  • Thread starter Thread starter altcmdesc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eigenvalues
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a linear operator \( T: V \to V \) with all eigenvalues equal to 0 must be nilpotent. Participants explore various approaches to establish this relationship without relying on the Cayley-Hamilton theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to show that every vector in \( V \) is in the kernel of some power of \( T \) to demonstrate nilpotency. Others discuss the implications of the restricted map \( T: T^k(V) \to T^k(V) \) and its properties, questioning the existence of eigenvalues and eigenvectors in different field contexts.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the assumptions regarding the field of the vector space and the implications of the restricted map's characteristics. Some guidance has been offered regarding the bijectiveness of the restricted map, but there remains uncertainty about the necessity of eigenvalues in non-algebraically closed fields.

Contextual Notes

There is a discussion about the implications of the vector space being over the reals and the potential absence of roots in characteristic polynomials, which may affect the argument regarding eigenvalues. The original poster is constrained by the requirement to avoid the Cayley-Hamilton theorem.

altcmdesc
Messages
64
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


How would I go about proving that if a linear operator T\colon V\to V has all eigenvalues equal to 0, then T must be nilpotent?

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that this follows trivially from the Cayley-Hamilton theorem (the characteristic polynomial is x^n and hence T^n=0), but, unfortunately, I'm not allowed to use that theorem. How else could I go about proving this? I've been trying to show that any vector in V is also in the kernel of some power of T and hence T is nilpotent, but I'm getting stuck.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
T^(k+1)(V) is a subset of T^k(V), right? If T isn't nilpotent then you eventually have a k such that T^(k+1)(V)=T^k(V) with T^k(V) not {0}. Consider the restricted map T:T^k(V)->T^k(V). What can you say about it?
 
Is it that the restricted map doesn't have any eigenvalues/eigenvectors and is bijective? Am I on the right track?
 
Last edited:
You are on the right track. Yes, the restricted T is bijective. It must have an eigenvector. What can you say about the corresponding eigenvalue?
 
Why must the restricted map have an eigenvector? I know where to go from there, but I can't seem to understand why that must be true since there isn't any assumption made that the base field of the vector space V is algebraically closed.
 
Last edited:
The restricted T maps the vector space T^m(V) to itself. Look at it's characteristic polynomial. It must have a root r, mustn't it? That means r*I-T is singular.
 
My point is that if the vector space is over the reals, for example, not every characteristic polynomial has roots (e.g. x^2+1), so if T^m(V) isn't over an algebraically closed field, we don't necessarily have that the restricted map has an eigenvalue...right?
 
altcmdesc said:
My point is that if the vector space is over the reals, for example, not every characteristic polynomial has roots (e.g. x^2+1), so if T^m(V) isn't over an algebraically closed field, we don't necessarily have that the restricted map has an eigenvalue...right?

Right. But then what exactly do you mean by "T has all eigenvalues equal to zero"? Take the matrix T=[[0,0,0],[0,0,-1],[0,1,0]]. T has one REAL eigenvalue and that's 0. T is not nilpotent. I don't think I would describe T as having all eigenvalues equal to 0.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K