# Exercise 56 in chapter 1 of Lang's algebra

#### stupiduser

Hi,

I have been puzzled by this exercise for some time. I won't repeat it here as the hint refers to other exercises, so I would be copying a whole page of the book.

My question is as follows. After having defined the sets $$S_i$$ and picked a complex number $$s$$ not belonging to any of the $$S_i$$ it is trivial to use part (b) of exercise 55 to show that for some large $$k$$ we have $$M_i^k(s)\in S_i$$ for all $$i$$.

Now the problem is that we still need to prove that $$M_i^{nk}(s)\in S_i$$ for all $$n\neq 0$$ i.e. all the exponents, but I don't see how this can be done for negative exponents.

Further, I have no idea how to prove that there exists such a $$k$$ that $$M_i^k(S_j)\subset S_i$$ for all $$j\neq i$$ and further for all the exponents of $$M_i^k$$. It doesn't even seem plausible that this could happen as any element close to $$w'_i$$ is (for a large enough $$k$$) mapped into $$U_i$$ i.e. close to $$w_i$$ by part (b) of the previous exercise. Thus, it would seem that choosing some $$z\in U_i'$$ closer and closer to $$w_i'$$ would require $$k$$ to grove without bound...

I'm just wondering whether anyone has ever done this exercise or has some tips on how to approach it?

Thanks.

Related Linear and Abstract Algebra News on Phys.org

#### stupiduser

Nevermind the first part. I just realized that the inverse of a matrix has the same fixed points, so we get the required condition for the element s for negative exponents. This doesn't help with the second problem relating the sets though.

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving