1
$\begingroup$

I need revision of the following problem:

"Let $T$ be a linear operator on a finite-dimensional space $V$. Suppose $p(x) = f(x) = p_1(x)^r$ where $p(x)$ is the minimal polynomial, $f(x)$ the characteristic polynomial and $p_1(x)$ is an irreducible polynomial. Show that there is no non trivial T-invariant subspace with complementary T-invariant subspace."

Now, this is my attempt:
Given a T-invariant subspace, the minimal polynomial for this subspace divides the minimal polynomial $p(x)$. So, consider the polynomial $p_1(x)^k$ with $2 \le k \lt r$ and define $W = \ker(p_1(T)^{k-1})$. $W$ is clearly T-invariant.
Since $p_1^k$ divides $p_1^r$ there exists a polynomial $h$ such that $$p(x) = p_1(x)^kh(x)$$ So we get that $p_1^{k-1}h(T)$ is not the zero operator, so for a $\beta \in V$, $\beta \ne 0$ we have $p_1^{k-1}h(T)\beta \ne 0$. It follows that $$p_1(p_1^{k-1}h(T))\beta = p_1^kh(T)\beta = p_1(T)^{k-1}(p_1h(T)\beta) = 0 $$ and therefore $p_1h(T)\beta \in W$. But there is no $\gamma \in W$ such that $p_1h(T)\beta = p_1h(T)\gamma$, because if there is such $\gamma$ then $$ p_1^{k-2}p_1h(T)\gamma = p_1^{k-2}p_1h(T)\beta \\ p_1^{k-1}h(T)\gamma = p_1^{k-1}h(T)\beta \\ \underbrace{hp_1^{k-1}(T)\gamma = 0 }_{\text{since $\gamma \in W$}} = p_1^{k-1}h(T)\beta$$ But $p_1^{k-1}h(T)\beta \ne 0$, a contradiction. So, for the different choices of $k$, $W$ cannot have a complementary T-invariant subspace.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think the claim is false. As a counterexample, have a look at$$T = \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0\\0 & 2\end{pmatrix}.$$ Then $f(x) = (1-x)(2-x) = q(x)$ and this polynomial is irreducible. However, $V = span\,\{e_1\}\oplus span\,\{e_2\}$ and both subspaces are invariant with respect to $T$. $\endgroup$ – amsmath Oct 10 '17 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ @amsmath ohh I believe the minimal polynomial has to be a power of an irreducible polynomial in this case $\endgroup$ – mate89 Oct 10 '17 at 23:38
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, sorry. I forgot what irreducible means for a moment... $\endgroup$ – amsmath Oct 11 '17 at 1:39
1
$\begingroup$

Let $W$ a proper invariant subspace. The minimal polynomial of $T_{|W}$ divides the minimal polynomial of $T$, so must be of form $p_1^s$ for some $s< r$. If $W$ had an invariant complement, we would conclude $p_1^{u}$ annihilates $T$, for some $u<r$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why $p_1^u$ annihilates T and not only the restriction of T under that complement? Can't see it .. $\endgroup$ – mate89 Oct 10 '17 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ @mate89: $p_1^{u}$ annihilates both restrictions, hence also their direct sum. $\endgroup$ – orangeskid Oct 11 '17 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ @amsmath: the minimal polynomial of $T_{|W}$ has degree $< \dim V$ .Also it has to divide the minimal polynomial of $T$, $p^r$, of degree $\dim V$. So it must be a lesser power. $\endgroup$ – orangeskid Oct 11 '17 at 1:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This was actually clear. My problem was that you did not describe the key point very clearly. We have minimal polynomials $p_1^s$ and $p_1^t$ for the two restrictions, where $s,t < r$. Hence $p_1^m$ annihilates $T$, where $m := \max\{s,t\} < r$. Contradiction! $\endgroup$ – amsmath Oct 11 '17 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ @amsmath: Yes, that makes it transparent! Good call. $\endgroup$ – orangeskid Oct 11 '17 at 1:52

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.