In Axler's linear algebra chapter 5, he explicitly shows that for a complex vector space $V$ and a linear operator $T$, there exists a choice of basis such that the matrix of the operator with respect to it is upper triangular. Here's the proof sketch:

Use induction on the dimension of $V$, for $T\in L(V)$, let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue (which must exist for a complex vector space), let $U=\mathrm{im}(T-\lambda I)$. He showed that $U$ is a proper subspace of $V$, and it is invariant under $T$. So $T$ restricted to $U$ is an operator on $U$, by induction hypothesis, there exists basis $(u_1,\dots ,u_m)$ such that the matrix for $T$ restricted to $U$ is upper triangular.

Then extend $U$'s basis to $(u_1,\dots u_m, v_1, \dots, v_n)$ a basis for $V$.

$$Tv_k=(T-\lambda I)v_k + \lambda v_k$$

The expression shows that $Tv_k \in \mathrm{span} (u_1, \dots, u_m, v_1, \dots ,v_k)$ for each $k$. By a theorem proven before, this is equivalent to the matrix of $T$ with respect to this basis being upper triangular.

My question: The above proof only uses the fact that a complex vector space must have an eigenvalue, for a real vector space, if it is given that it has an eigenvalue, would the above construction to show that there exists a basis such that the matrix is upper triangular make sense? If so, does it mean that a real vector space have invariant subspace (of $\mathrm{im}(T)$ ) of different dimensions under $T$? (Since there exists a basis $(v_1,\dots , v_n)$ such that $Tv_1,\dots , Tv_k \in \mathrm{span}(v_1,\dots , v_k)$ for each $k$)


In a real vector space, we can't generally guarantee that $T$ will have $n$ eigenvalues. The real power of the complex case is that as you restrict $T$ to smaller subspaces, we can always find an eigenvalue/eigenvector within that space.

It is notable, however, that real operators can be "almost" upper triangularized (see p. 39 here). In particular, we note that a real linear operator in $L(V)$ always has an invariant subspace of dimension at most $2$.

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I am not getting this one. The proof only requires the existence of a single eigenvalue, so wouldnt it work if there is at least one real eigenvalue for a real vector space? Using similar construction, like finding a basis for $\mathrm{im}(T-\lambda I)$, etc. What makes this construction invalid? $\endgroup$ – lEm Aug 17 '16 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ The key to the proof is that when you take the restriction of $T$ to an invariant subspace, that transformation also has an eigenvalue. It's not enough to simply say that $T$ itself will have an eigenvalue. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Aug 17 '16 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ Also, did you mean that any invariant subspace of a real vector space at most has dimension $2$? That is actually very surprising for me. However I dont see the connection between this fact and the decomposition. $\endgroup$ – lEm Aug 17 '16 at 15:56
  • $\begingroup$ That is not what I meant. I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. We can't guarantee a one dimensional invariant subsapce (i.e. an eigenvector and its span), but we can guarantee a two dimensional invariant subspace. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Aug 17 '16 at 16:00
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I misinterpreted what you meant. Now its clear. Thanks a lot for the help :) $\endgroup$ – lEm Aug 17 '16 at 16:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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