Irreducible linear operator is cyclic

david34
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I´m having a hard time proving the next result:
Let T:V→V be a linear operator on a finite dimensional vector space V . If T is irreducible then T cyclic.
My definitions are: T is an irreducible linear operator iff V and {{\vec 0}} are the only complementary invariant subspaces.
T is cyclic linear operator iff V is a cyclic vector space (i.e. there is a vector \vec v ∈ V such that V is generated by the set of vectors {{ \vec v, T(\vec v), T^{2}(\vec v),...}}

I was trying to do it by contradiction: suppose T is not a cyclic linar operator then ∀ \vec v ∈ V the generated space by the set {{ \vec v, T(\vec v), T^{2}(\vec v),...}} is not equal to V also if \vec v \neq \vec 0 then span { \vec v, T(\vec v), T^{2}(\vec v),... } is not equal to {\vec 0}.

Moreover span {\vec v, T(\vec v), T^{2}(\vec v),... } is invariant (I´ve already proven it); also I know that every subspace has a complement that is : ∃ W subspace of V such that W ⊕ span{\vec v, T(\vec v), T^{2}(\vec v),...} = V

Then I think a just need to prove that the complementary subspace W is invariant that is : T(W)⊆ W but this is the part that I´m having trouble.

Any comment, suggestion, hint would be highly appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the span of a non-zero vector,v, is not the whole space then there is a vector ,w ,which is not in the span of v. The span of w is a second cyclic subspace. Both of these subspaces are irreducible and invariant. So what is their intersection?
 
But how can we know that T(w) is not in span{v,T(v),...} ?
 
david34 said:
But how can we know that T(w) is not in span{v,T(v),...} ?

By assumption, w is not in the span of v.
 
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