All eigenvalues 0 implies nilpotent

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

If a linear operator T: V → V has all eigenvalues equal to 0, then T must be nilpotent. This conclusion is derived from the properties of linear transformations and their eigenvalues. The discussion highlights that the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, which states that a linear operator satisfies its characteristic polynomial, is not permitted for this proof. Instead, the focus is on demonstrating that any vector in V is in the kernel of some power of T, leading to the conclusion that T is nilpotent.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear operators and vector spaces
  • Familiarity with eigenvalues and eigenvectors
  • Knowledge of nilpotent operators
  • Basic concepts of characteristic polynomials
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of nilpotent operators in linear algebra
  • Explore the implications of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem
  • Investigate the relationship between eigenvalues and the structure of linear transformations
  • Learn about the significance of algebraically closed fields in linear algebra
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying linear algebra, and anyone interested in the properties of linear operators and their eigenvalues.

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
2K