Linear Algebra - Invariant Subspaces/Adjoint

steelphantom
Messages
158
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose T is in L(V) and U is a subspace of V. Prove that U is invariant under T if and only if Uperp is invariant under T*.

Homework Equations


V = U \oplus Uperp
if v \in V, u \in U, w \in Uperp, then v = u + w.
<Tv, w> = <v, T*w>

The Attempt at a Solution


If U is invariant under T, this means that if u \in U, Tu \in U. Basically the same thing for Uperp. Not really sure where to go from here. Any ideas? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rember that <u, w> = 0 for any u in U, v in Uperp. If U is invariant under T, then Tu is in U so <Tu, w>= 0= <u, T*w>, for any u in U. What does that tell you about T*w?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Rember that <u, w> = 0 for any u in U, v in Uperp. If U is invariant under T, then Tu is in U so <Tu, w>= 0= <u, T*w>, for any u in U. What does that tell you about T*w?

Does it say that T*w must be in Uperp, since <u, T*w> = 0 for any T*w?
 
Just a bump to see if I am understanding this correctly:

If T is invariant under U, then <Tu, w> = 0 since Tu is in U, w is in Uperp. But <Tu, w> = <u, T*w> = 0, which means that T*w is in Uperp. This proves that T* is invariant under Uperp.

If T* is invariant under Uperp, then <u, T*w> = 0 since u is in U, T*w is in Uperp. But <u, T*w> = <Tu, w> = 0, which means that Tw is in U. This proves that T is invariant under U.

Is that correct, or am I missing something?
 
steelphantom said:
Just a bump to see if I am understanding this correctly:

If T is invariant under U, then <Tu, w> = 0 since Tu is in U, w is in Uperp. But <Tu, w> = <u, T*w> = 0, which means that T*w is in Uperp. This proves that T* is invariant under Uperp.
Actually it proves that Uperp is invariant under T*!

If T* is invariant under Uperp, then <u, T*w> = 0 since u is in U, T*w is in Uperp. But <u, T*w> = <Tu, w> = 0, which means that Tw is in U. This proves that T is invariant under U.

Is that correct, or am I missing something?
No, your second part looks so much like the first part because T and T* are "dual".
 
Err... that's what I meant. :redface: It was kind of late. Thanks for your help! :smile:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top