Proof: Linear Algebra - U Invariant Under Every Operator on V

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof or counterexample regarding the invariance of a subspace U under every operator on a vector space V. The original poster attempts to explore the implications of U being invariant, suggesting that U must either be the zero subspace or equal to V itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of the claim that any proper subspace of V is invariant under every operator T. They question the assumptions made and provide examples to illustrate potential counterexamples.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of examples and counterexamples, with participants providing specific linear transformations and discussing their implications on the invariance of subspaces. Some participants suggest that the original proof lacks clarity and does not adequately address the conditions under which U remains invariant.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering specific dimensions of U and V, and how these dimensions affect the invariance under linear transformations. The discussion includes considerations of cases where the dimensions of U and V are equal or where U is the zero subspace.

evilpostingmong
Messages
338
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove or give a counterexample: If U is a subspace of V that is invariant
under every operator on V, then U={0} or U=V.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Counterexample: Suppose dimV=n and dimU=m with m<n.
let u=u1+...+um in U. Since u1+...+um=u1+...+um+...+0n
we can apply any T and get T(u1)+...+T(um)+..+T(0n)
=c1u1+...+cmum+cm+1*0+...+cn*0=c1u1+...+cmum in U.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like you are claiming to prove that ANY proper subspace of V is invariant under any ANY operator T. Does that really seem likely?? Do you really think for ANY operator T, that T(u1)=c1*u1?? Show me an operator T and a subspace U where that is NOT true. Be concrete. Work in say R^3 with basis {e1,e2,e3}. Pick say, U=span{e1}. Define an operator T such that U is not invariant.
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
It looks like you are claiming to prove that ANY proper subspace of V is invariant under any ANY operator T. Does that really seem likely?? Do you really think for ANY operator T, that T(u1)=c1*u1?? Show me an operator T and a subspace U where that is NOT true. Be concrete. Work in say R^3 with basis {e1,e2,e3}. Pick say, U=span{e1}. Define an operator T such that U is not invariant.

T(e1)=T(e1)+T(0)+T(0)=0*e1+ c1*0+c2*0=0 So T maps from U to {0}.
 
evilpostingmong said:
T(e1)=T(e1)+T(0)+T(0)=0*e1+ c1*0+c2*0=0 So T maps from U to {0}.

But what's T(e1)?. Look, you can define a linear transformation by giving the values of T(e1), T(e2) and T(e3). Here's an example. Define S by S(e1)=e2, S(e2)=0 and S(e3)=0. Is U=span{e1} invariant under S?
 
Dick said:
But what's T(e1)?. Look, you can define a linear transformation by giving the values of T(e1), T(e2) and T(e3). Here's an example. Define S by S(e1)=e2, S(e2)=0 and S(e3)=0. Is U=span{e1} invariant under S?

Oh okay e2 is not in U so you didn't map from U to U.
Now I will prove that U={0} or V.
For T to map from U to U under any transformation T,
let u=0 so T(u)=0 so all members in the rangeT are
0 and for the domain to match the range, U={0}.
So we mapped from {0} to {0}. And U can also be V
to be invariant under T since we map from V to V if
we let U=V.
 
I think you got the point of the example S, but your 'proof' doesn't convey that. It looks like you just defined T to be the zero map, T(v)=0 for any v. ANY subspace is invariant under that map. Why? The point to the example was that given a subspace U, if I can find a vector v that is not in U, I can define a linear transformation T that maps a nonzero vector in U to v. Try and use the example to model a proof for a general U. You may want to pick a specially chosen basis for V. Can you start?
 
Dick said:
I think you got the point of the example S, but your 'proof' doesn't convey that. It looks like you just defined T to be the zero map, T(v)=0 for any v. ANY subspace is invariant under that map. Why? The point to the example was that given a subspace U, if I can find a vector v that is not in U, I can define a linear transformation T that maps a nonzero vector in U to v. Try and use the example to model a proof for a general U. You may want to pick a specially chosen basis for V. Can you start?
Basis for V <v1...vn> basis for U <v1...vm>.
Let m<n.
Now, a possible T maps vi to vm+1 1[tex]\leq[/tex]i[tex]\leq[/tex]m. Since vm+1
is not within U's basis, U is not invariant under T.
 
evilpostingmong said:
Basis for V <v1...vn> basis for U <v1...vm>.
Let m<n.
Now, a possible T maps vi to vm+1 1[tex]\leq[/tex]i[tex]\leq[/tex]m. Since vm+1
is not within U's basis, U is not invariant under T.

That's it! Simple, isn't it? Now for what choices of U is this impossible? I.e. what happens if m=n or m=0?
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
That's it! Simple, isn't it? Now for what choices of U is this impossible? I.e. what happens if m=n or m=0?
let m=n. Basis for U=<v1...vm>. Since U is a subspace of V, <v1...vm> is in the basis
of V. But since dimU=dimV, U=V. Now we can map T(vi) to vn or "lower" without falling out
of the basis for U.
let m=0. Basis for U=<0>. T(0)=c*0=0. Since 0 is in {0}, we mapped from {0} to {0}.
 
  • #10
I guess. But it's not so much that you "CAN map T(vi) to vn or "lower" without falling out
of the basis", you can always do that, it's that you CAN'T map T(vi) outside of the basis.
 
  • #11
That's what I was thinking you were thinking. Expressing yourself clearly takes some practice. Keep practicing.
 
  • #12
I deleted that message, sorry lol.
That's the thing with abstract concepts, I can understand, but can't express.
Alright, were done here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K