I am trying to look into a special case of the diagonalizable conditions mentioned here and here to get a better understanding of the proof for the general condition. I was wondering if my approach is correct, as there is no hint mentioned in these posts linked, without Jordan Normal Form.

Suppose $V$ is a finite-dimensional complex vector space and $T \in \mathcal{L}(V).$ If $T$ has one distinct eigenvalue and $V = null(T - \psi I) \oplus range(T- \psi I),$ $\forall \psi \in \mathbb{C}$, then $T$ is diagonalizable.

Let $\lambda$ denote the distinct eigenvalue of $T$. Assume, for contradiction, $T$ were not diagonalizable, and thus $range(T-\lambda I) \neq \{0\}$

Let $u_1, ..., u_m$ constitue a basis for $null(T-\lambda I)$ and are thus all eigenvectors with eigenvalue $\lambda$, but are not a basis for $V,$ since $range(T-\lambda I) \neq \{0\}$

Extend $u_1,...u_m$ to a basis for $V,$ $u_1,...,u_m,v_1,...v_n$, where $v_1,...v_n$ are not eigenvectors of $V.$ Otherwise a contradiction would arise that either $range(T- \lambda I)$ did just contain $0$ or that $\lambda$ wasn't the only distinct eigenvalue of $T$.

Thus we now know, $(T- \lambda I)|_{span(v_1, ..., v_n)}$ is invertible, and in fact $T$ is invertible over this space, since otherwise $span(v_1, ...,v_n)$ would contain eigenvectors with eigenvalue $0$. And appending one of the $u's$ to this basis, WLOG, $u_1$, if $\lambda \neq 0$, $T|_{span(u_1, v_1,...,v_n)}$ is invertible. And denote: $U = span(u_1, v_1, ... v_n).$

Since $T$ contains an eigenvalue, $\lambda$, over $U$ (eigenvector $u_1$), there exists a basis $u_1, v'_1, ... v'_n$, over which $T|_U$ has an upper-triangular matrix: $\mathcal{M}(T|_U)$.

If $T|_U$ is invertible then all the diagonal elements of $\mathcal{M}(T|_U)$ are non-zero, and thus there exists other $\psi$ such that $(\mathcal{M}(T|_U) - \psi I)$ is not invertible. Since $\lambda$ is the only distinct eigenvalue of $T$, $\lambda = \psi$, and $v'_1,...,v'_n$ are eigenvectors of $T$ and a contradiction arises concluding that $range(T - \lambda I)$ does equal $\{0\}$.

To handle the case that $\lambda = 0$, then $T$ is not invertible over $U$, and thus $\mathcal{M}(T|_U)$ contains a zero diagonal element. Considering $u_1, v'_1, ..., v'_n$ as the ordered basis on which $\mathcal{M}(T|_U)$ is diagonal, then $u_1$ has eigenvalue $0$; so, since $\mathcal{M}(T|_U)$ is upper triangular:


1) $v'_1$ is an eigenvector, in which case it must have an eigenvalue, by construction, that is not $0$, a contradiction. 2) For $\nu_1,\nu_2 \in \mathbb{C}, v'_1= \nu_1 * v'_1 + \nu_2 * u_1$. If $\nu_1 \neq 0$, there exists an eigenvalue that is non zero, a contradiction. If $\nu_1 = 0$, then $u_1 \in range(T - \lambda I)$, a contradiction.

Since we have failed to show $V$ does not have a basis of eigenvectors, $range(T - \lambda I) = \{0\}$ and $V = null(T - \lambda I)$ and $T$ is diagonalizable. $\Box$

Please give me hints as to how I can correct this, if it is wrong. Or let me know if there are any gaps in my understanding. Or even if there is a way to shorten this, if it is correct. I tried multiple other approaches that I was able to catch an error on.


Suppose $T: V \to V$ is a linear map, and that $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$ is any scalar. Now, let $K_\lambda = \ker(T - \lambda)$ and $I_\lambda = \operatorname{Im}(T - \lambda)$.

Since $K_\lambda$ is precisely the $\lambda$-eigenspace of $T$, we have $T(K_\lambda) \subseteq K_\lambda$, and since $T(T - \lambda)v = (T - \lambda)Tv$, we also have that $T(I_\lambda) \subseteq I_\lambda$. Hence $T$ restricts to a linear map $T|_{I_\lambda}: I_\lambda \to I_\lambda$. Note that $K_\lambda \cap I_\lambda$ is precisely the $\lambda$-eigenspace of the operator $T|_{I_\lambda}$.

Now, let's add in the rest of the assumptions in the question. Suppose that $\lambda$ is the only eigenvalue of $T$, and that $V = K_\lambda \oplus I_\lambda$, and suppose towards a contradiction that $I_\lambda \neq 0$. Since $I_\lambda \neq 0$ and $\mathbb{C}$ is algebraically closed, $T|_{I_\lambda}$ has some eigenvector. Since $\lambda$ is the only eigenvalue of $T$, $\lambda$ must also be the only eigenvalue of $T|_{I_\lambda}$, and so $T|_{I_\lambda}$ must have a nonzero $\lambda$-eigenspace. However, the $\lambda$-eigenspace of $T|_{I_\lambda}$ is $K_\lambda \cap I_\lambda = 0$.

  • $\begingroup$ Ah ok, so I guess my proof became long since I formed the subspace $U$, as defined above (which lead to the whole upper-triangular argument), when I could of just said $T|_span(v_1, ..., v_n)$ has an eigenvector. $\endgroup$ – dylan7 May 30 at 12:51

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.