I was reading on direct sums when I got into this Wikipedia page

A linear operator T on a finite-dimensional vector space is semi-simple if every T-invariant subspace has a complementary T-invariant subspace.

An important result regarding semi-simple operators is that, a linear operator on a finite dimensional vector space over an algebraically closed field is semi-simple if and only if it is diagonalizable

I thought about how we could prove it, and I am following what is says in the page:

This is because such an operator always has an eigenvector; if it is, in addition, semi-simple, then it has a complementary invariant hyperplane, which itself has an eigenvector, and thus by induction is diagonalizable. Conversely, diagonalizable operators are easily seen to be semi-simple, as invariant subspaces are direct sums of eigenspaces, and any basis for this space can be extended to an eigenbasis.

I understand that we can write $T=\bigoplus_i T_{\lambda_i}$ where $T_{\lambda_i}=T|_{U_{\lambda_i}}$ and ${U_{\lambda_i}}$ is the eigenspace spanned by one eigenvector, but why does that imply that $T$ is diagonalizable?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Pick one nonzero vector from each $U_{\lambda_i}$, you get an eigenbasis. Thus $T$ is diagonalisable. $\endgroup$ – user1551 Sep 9 '17 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ Thats the short form of my answer below, thanks. You should note that it's possible that $\operatorname{dim}(U_{\lambda_i}) > 1$, so one vector of each $U_{\lambda_i}$ is not enough. So better say take a basis of each of the eigenspaces which yields a basis of the whole vector space $V$. $\endgroup$ – S. M. Roch Sep 9 '17 at 15:23

We denote the algebraically closed ground field by $k$ and the given finite-dimensional $k$-vector space by $V$. There are at least two (equivalent) ways to use induction:

We can construct an increasing chain of subspaces $U_i \subseteq U_{i+1}$ of $V$ which are spanned by eigenvectors of $T$ as follows:

  • Since $k$ is algebraically closed there exists an eigenvector $v_1 \in V$ for $T$, so $U_1 := \langle v_1 \rangle$ is a $T$-invariant subspace of $V$. Since $T$ is semisimple there exists a $T$-invariant subspace $W_1 \subseteq V$ with $V = U_1 \oplus W_1$.

  • Since $k$ is algebraically closed there exists an eigenvector $v_2 \in V$ for the restriction $T|_{W_1}$. This is also an eigenvector for $T$, so $U_2 := \langle v_1, v_2 \rangle$ is a $T$-invariant subspace of $V$. Since $T$ is semisimple there exists a $T$-invariant subspace $W_2 \subseteq V$ with $V = U_2 \oplus W_2$.

By continuing this process we get decompositions \begin{align*} V = U_1 \oplus W_1 = U_2 \oplus W_2 = U_3 \oplus W_3 = \dotsb \end{align*} where the summand $U_i$ are given by $U_i = \langle v_1, v_2, \dotsc, v_i \rangle$ with $v_1, v_2, v_3, \dotsc \in V$ being eigenvectors of $T$. Since $v_{i+1} \notin U_i = \langle v_1, \dotsc, v_i \rangle$ it follows that these eigenvectors are linearly independent, so $\dim U_i = i$.

It follows that the above process terminates after $n = \dim V$ many steps with $U_n = V$ and $W_n = 0$. Then $v_1, \dotsc, v_n$ is a basis of $V$ consisting of eigenvectors of $T$.

For the second proof we will need the following lemma:

Lemma: Let $T \colon V \to V$ be semisimple and let $U \subseteq V$ be a $T$-invariant subspace. Then the restriction $T|_U$ is also semisimple.

Proof: Let $W \subseteq U$ be an invariant subspace. Then $W$ is also a $T$-invariant subspace of $V$, so there exists some $T$-invariant subspace $W' \subseteq V$ with $V = W \oplus W'$. Then $W'' := W' \cap U$ is a $T$-invariant subspace of $U$.

We then have that $U = W \oplus W''$, which can be seen as follows: We have that $$ W \cap W'' = W \cap W' \cap U = 0 $$ since $W \cap W' = 0$. To see that $U = W + W''$ note that we can write $u \in U$ as $u = w + w'$ with $w \in W$ and $w' \in W'$ since $V = W + W'$. Then $w' = u - w \in U + W \subseteq U$ (here we use that $W$ is a subspace of $U$), so $w' \in W' \cap U = W''$.

We now proceed by induction on $\dim V$. For $\dim V = 0$ there is nothing to do.

If $\dim V \geq 1$ then there exists an eigenvector $v_1 \in V$ for $T$ since $k$ is algebraically closed. Then $\langle v_1 \rangle$ is a $T$-invariant subspace, so there exists a $T$-invariant subspace $W \subseteq V$ such that $V = \langle v_1 \rangle \oplus W$. Note that $\dim W = \dim V - 1$ since the eigenvector $v$ is necessarily non-zero.

The restriction $T|_W$ is also semisimple by the above lemma. By induction there exists a basis $v_2, \dotsc, v_n$ of $W$ consisting of eigenvectors of $T|_W$. These are also eigenvectors of $T$, and since $V = \langle v_1 \rangle \oplus W$ we find that $v_1, v_2, \dotsc, v_n$ is a basis of $V$.

Regarding your question:

I understand that we can write $T = \bigoplus_i T_{\lambda_i}$ where $T_{\lambda_i} = T|_{U_{\lambda_i}}$ and $U_{\lambda_i}$ is the eigenspace spanned by one eigenvector, but why does that imply that $T$ is diagonalizable?

I assume that $U$ is the given vector space (which I denoted by $V$) and that $U_{\lambda}$ is the eigenspace of $T$ with respect to the eigenvalue $\lambda$.

If the quoted situation were to happen, then one can pick for each one-dimensional space $U_{\lambda_i}$ some non-zero vector $u_i \in U_{\lambda_i}$. Since $U_{\lambda_i}$ is one-dimensional we have that $U_{\lambda_i} = \langle u_i \rangle$, so $T u_i \in U_{\lambda_i}$ is a scalar multiple of $u_i$ (from your notation I assume that this scalar should by $\lambda_i$). The eigenvectors $(u_i)_i$ form a basis since $T = \bigoplus_i T_{\lambda_i}$.

Note however, that the above proofs (as well as the one given on wikipedia, which is essentially the second one), do not give the decomposition $T = \bigoplus_{\lambda \in k} T_\lambda$ where $T_\lambda = T|_{U_\lambda} = \lambda \operatorname{id}_{U_\lambda}$, but instead a decomposition $T = T_1 \oplus \dotsb \oplus T_n$ where $T_i = T|_{U_i}$ for one-dimensional subspaces $U_1, \dotsc, U_n \subseteq V$. You seem to mix up these two decompositions, but they coincide if and only if every non-trivial eigenspace is one-dimensional, which is not necessarily true.


If $T$ is semi-simple, then you can find a basis so that the matrix of $T$ is diagonal in the following way:

$T$ has an eigenvector $v_1 \in V$ to an eigenvalue $\lambda_1$. This gives us a $T$-invariant subspace generated by $v_1$: $U_1 :=\langle v_1\rangle$. Since $T$ is semi-simple, there is a T-invariant complement space $U_1^c$, that means $V = U_1 \oplus U_1^c$. Let $(b_1, ..., b_{n-1})$ be a basis of $U_1^c$, then $B_1 = (v_1, b_1, ..., b_{n-1})$ is a basis of $V$.

Now the important step is to make clear how the matrix of $T$ with respect to basis $B_1$ looks like. It consists of two blocks, namely a $\mathbb{C}^{1\times 1}$ submatrix (The restriction of $T$ on $U_1$) and a $\mathbb{C}^{(n-1)\times(n-1)}$ submatrix (The restriction of $T$ on $U_1^c$), assuming that $\mathbb{C}$ is your field. This is because both subspaces are $T$-invariant!

We have done the first step of the diagonalization. Now we take the restriction of $T$ on $U_1^c$, $T_1: U_1^c \to U_1^c$. This is given by the $(n-1)\times(n-1)$-block in the matrix. And so we continue with $T_1$ and so on until the we have found a basis in which the matrix of $T$ is diagonal.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $T$ is semi-simple over $V$, does that mean over any $W\subset V$ that $T|_W$ is also semi-simple? $\endgroup$ – Rab Sep 9 '17 at 15:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Instead of < and > it’s better to use \langle and \rangle. $\endgroup$ – Jendrik Stelzner Sep 9 '17 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @RabMakh: Yes, sure. In the setting of your comment, let's say $U \subset W$ is a $T$-invariant subspace. Since $U$ is also a $T$-invariant subspace of $V$, there is by definition a $T$-invariant complement $U^c$ so that $V = U \oplus U^c$. Set $\tilde{U^c} := U^c \cap W$, then $\tilde{U^c}$ is a $T$-invariant subspace of $W$ with $W = U \oplus \tilde{U^c}$. This shows, that $T$ is also semisimple on $W$. $\endgroup$ – S. M. Roch Sep 9 '17 at 17:06

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.