Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Given a finite dimensional vector space $V$ over a field $k$ and a linear transformation $T: V \rightarrow V$ we can make $V$ a $k[x]$-module via the map:

$$(a_{0}+a_{1}x+\cdots+a_{n}x^{n}) \cdot v \mapsto \sum a_{i}T^{i}(v).$$

On page 10 of this file I was reading the following result:

"$V$ is a cyclic $k[x]$-module iff the minimal polynomial and the characteristic polynomial coincide"

Can anyone please show me how to prove this? Or any reference?

Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
The This in the sentence you quote cannot refer the anything you wrote before it. Maybe if you provide context, we can help. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jun 10 '11 at 21:37
1  
One direction is easy: every cyclic $K[x]$-submodule of $V$ has dimension at most the degree of the minimal polynomial, so if the minimal polynomial does not equal the characteristic polynomial, no cyclic $K[x]$-submodule of $V$ can equal $V$ (the dimension is too small). –  Arturo Magidin Jun 11 '11 at 4:19
    
The important point really is the degree of the minimal polynomial, not that it is equal to the characteristic polynomial. –  lhf Jun 11 '11 at 15:45
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

As I mentioned in comments, one direction is easy: if the minimal polynomial is not equal to the characteristic polynomial (up to the leading term), then its degree is stricly smaller than $\dim(V)=n$; then every $T$-cyclic subspace has dimension at most $m$ (the degree of the minimal polynomial), hence cannot equal all of $V$. Thus, if the minimal polynomial does not equal the characteristic polynomial, then $V$ cannot be $T$-cyclic (which means it is not a cyclic $k[x]$-module).

The converse, however, is subtler. Suppose the minimal polynomial equals the characteristic polynomial. That means that for every polynomial $p(t)$ of degree stricly smaller than $n$, $p(T)$ is not identically zero; that is, for every polynomial $p(t)$ of degree strictly smaller than $n$, there exists a vector $v$ such that $p(T)(v)\neq 0$. This does not, however, in and of itself, imply that there is a vector $v$ such that for every polynomial $p(t)$ of degree strictly smaller than $n$ we have $p(T)(v)\neq 0$. Just because for every polynomial there is a vector that works, it does not follow that there is a vector that works for every polynomial.

Instead, we need to work a bit harder. We need to show that $V$ has a $T$-cyclic subspace whose dimension equals that of the minimal polynomial.

Write the minimal polynomial as a product of powers of distinct irreducible polynomials: $$m(t) = \phi_1(t)^{k_1}\cdots\phi_r(t)^{k_r}.$$ The first step is, for each $i$, to find a vector $v_i$ whose annihilator is $\phi_i(t)^{k_i}$ and no smaller power of $t$.

Consider $$K_{\phi_i} = \{v\in V\mid \text{there exists }p\text{ such that }\phi_i(T)^p(v)=0\}.$$ Then $V=K_{\phi_1}\oplus K_{\phi_2}\oplus\cdots\oplus K_{\phi_r}$ (this holds whether or not the minimal polynomial equals the characteristic polynomial).

Now let $S_i$ be the collection of all $p$ such that there exists $v\in K_{\phi_i}$ such that $\phi_i(t)^{p}(v)=0$, but $\phi_i(t)^{p-1}(v)\neq 0$. It is easy to verify that $S_i$ is finite, since we can take an arbitrary basis for $K_{\phi_i}$ and simply take the exponents corresponding to a basis. Let $M$ be the maximum; then $\phi_i(t)^M$ annihilates $K_{\phi_i}$. That means that $$\frac{m(t)\phi_i(t)^M}{\phi_i(t)^{k_i}}$$ annihilates $V$, which means that this polynomial is a multiple of the minimal polynomial. Hence $M\geq k_i$; but it is also easy to check that $\phi_i(t)^{k_i}$ annihilates $K_{\phi_i}$, so $M=k_i$. Therefore, there exists a vector $v_i\in K_{\phi_i}$ such that $\phi_i(t)^{k_i}(v_i)=0$, but $\phi_i(t)^{k_i-1}(v_i)\neq 0$.

Now we have the following:

Theorem. Let $V$ be a vector space, $T$ a linear operator on $V$, and let $w_1$, $w_2$ be two vectors. Suppose that the $T$-annihilators $p_1(t)$ and $p_2(t)$ of $w_1$ and $w_2$ (respectively) are relatively prime. Then the $T$-annihilator of $w_1+w_2$ is $p_1(t)p_2(t)$.

Proof. To show that $p_1(T)p_2(T)$ annihilates $w_1+w_2$ is straightforward, since $p_1(T)p_2(T)=p_2(T)p_1(T)$.

Note that if $W_1$ is the $T$-cyclic subspace generated by $w_1$ and $W_2$ is the $T$-cyclic subspace generated by $w_2$, then $W_1\cap W_2=\{0\}$, since any vector in the intersection must be annihilated by both $p_1(T)$ and $p_2(T)$, so its annihilator must divide their gcd, which is $1$.

Let $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ be polynomials such that $f(t)p_1(t)+g(t)p_2(t)=1$. Then $f(T)p_1(T)$ is the projection of $W_1\oplus W_2$ onto $W_2$: note that $$f(T)p_1(T)(T^i(w_1)) = T^i(f(T)p_1(T)(w_1)) = T^i(f(T)(0)) = 0,$$ and $$f(T)p_1(T)(T^j(w_2)) = T^j\Bigl(\bigl(1 - g(T)p_2(T)\bigr)(w_2)\Bigr)= T^j(w_2).$$

Consider the $T$-cyclic subspace generated by $w_1+w_2$. It is $T$-invariant, so it is also invariant under $f(T)p_1(T)$; hence $w_2 = f(T)p_1(T)(w_1+w_2) = w_2$ lies in the $T$-cyclic subspace generated by $w_1+w_2$, and hence so does $W_1$; since $w_1+w_2$ and $w_1$ lie in the space, so does $w_2$, and therefore it also contains $W_2$. Therefore, we have that the $T$-cyclic subspace generated by $w_1+w_2$ contains $W_1\oplus W_2$, and hence must be equal to it.

Finally, the dimension of $W_1\oplus W_2$ (which is the $T$-cyclic subspace generated by $w_1+w_2$) equals the sum of the degrees of $p_1(t)$ and $p_2(t)$; we already know that $p_1(t)p_2(t)$ annihilates the space, hence is a multiple of the $T$-annihilator of $w_1+w_2$. Since the annihilator has the same degree as $p_1(t)p_2(t)$, and they are both monic, it follows that $p_1(t)p_2(t)$ is the $T$-annihilator of $w_1+w_2$, as desired. QED

Corollary. Let $V$ be a vector space, $T$ an operator on $V$, and let $w_1,\ldots,w_n$ be vectors in $V$ with corresponding $T$-annihilators $p_1(t),\ldots, p_n(t)$. If the $p_i(t)$ are pairwise relatively prime, then the $T$-annihilator of $w_1+\cdots +w_n$ is $p_1(t)\cdots p_n(t)$.

Putting this together, we have:

Theorem. Let $V$ be a finite dimensional vector space, let $T$ be an operator on $V$, and let $m(t)$ be the minimal polynomial of $T$. Then $V$ has a $T$-cyclic subspace of dimension $\deg(m(t))$.

Proof. Write $m(t)= \phi_1(t)^{k_1}\cdots \phi_r(t)^{k_r}$ as a product of powers of pairwise distinct irreducible polynomials. We know that for each $i$ there is a vector $v_i$ whose $T$-annihilator is $\phi_i(t)^{k_i}$. By the theorem above, the $T$-annihilator of $v=v_1+\cdots+v_r$ is $\phi_1(t)^{k_1}\cdots \phi_r(t)^{k_r}=m(t)$, and in particular the $T$-cyclic subspace generated by $v$ has dimension $\deg(m(t))$, as desired. QED

Now it follows that if the minimal polynomial has degree $\dim(V)$, then there exists a vector $v$ such that no polynomial of degree strictly smaller than $m(t)$ will $T$-annihilate $v$, so $v$ is a witness to the fact that $V$ is $T$-cyclic (and hence $k[x]$-cyclic under the defined action).

share|improve this answer
    
thank you for the great answer –  user10 Jun 13 '11 at 14:04
add comment

There is a clear and detailed proof of this fact in Dummit and Foote's Algebra book, if I'm not mistaken.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.