I am studying the Jordan canonical form from the book Linear Algebra by Friedberg, Insel, and Spence (4th Edition). I have a question regarding the following theorem:

Theorem 7.7. Let $T$ be a linear operator on a finite-dimensional vector space $V$, and let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $T$. Then the generalized eigenspace $K_{\lambda}$ has an ordered basis consisting of a union of disjoint cycles of generalized eigenvectors corresponding to $\lambda$.

I provide part of the proof for context.

Proof: The proof is by induction on $n = \text{dim}(K_{\lambda})$. The result is clear for $n = 1$. Suppose the result is true whenver $\text{dim}(K_{\lambda}) < n$ and suppose $\text{dim}(K_{\lambda}) = n$. Let $U = (T-\lambda I) \upharpoonright_{K_{\lambda}}$. Then $R(U)$ is a subspace of $K_{\lambda}$ of lesser dimension. Now we consider $T\upharpoonright_{R(U)}$. Then $R(U)$ is the generalized eigenspace corresponding to $\lambda$ of $T\upharpoonright_{R(U)}$ and therefore, we may use the inductive hypothesis.

Question: In order to utilize the inductive hypothesis one needs to show that $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $T\upharpoonright_{R(U)}$ (as stated in the Theorem) i.e. $\exists x\in R(U)$ such that $(T-\lambda I)x = 0$ or in other words $\exists y\in K_{\lambda}$ such that $(T-\lambda I)^2y = 0$. How does one show the existence of such a $y$?


Maybe this is the confusing bit, but there is just the trivial case where $R(U) = 0$.

Otherwise, if $R(U) \neq 0$ then for any nonzero $x \in R(U)$ there exists $y \in K_\lambda$ of rank $m > 1$ such that $x = U(y)$. So, $x$ is a generalized eigenvector of $T \restriction R(U)$ of rank $m-1$. Since $R(U)$ definitely contains the generalized eigenspace of $T \restriction R(U)$, we can conclude $R(U)$ is the generalized eigenspace corresponding to $\lambda$ of $T \restriction R(U)$.

Maybe another thing to note is that $T \restriction R(U)$ is a legitimate operator on $R(U)$ (aka $R(U)$ is an invariant subspace of $T$) since $T$ and $T - \lambda I$ commute.

  • $\begingroup$ $R(U)$ being a $T-$ invariant subspace does not guarantee that $\lambda$ is a root of the characteristic polynomial of $T\upharpoonright_{R(U)}$, does it? $\endgroup$ – Karthik Kannan Oct 31 '19 at 15:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When we show $R(U) \neq 0$ is the generalized eigenspace of $T \restriction R(U)$ for $\lambda$ this shows $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue for $T \restriction R(U)$ (just look at a generalized eigenvector of rank $1$), so a root of the characteristic polynomial. What $R(U)$ being a $T$-invariant subspace says is that $T \restriction R(U)$ is actually an operator on $R(U)$, which is important for the induction since we start with an operator $T$ on some space $V$. $\endgroup$ – AGF Oct 31 '19 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ I understand your point, thank you very much. $\endgroup$ – Karthik Kannan Oct 31 '19 at 19:05

In the trivial case $R(U) = \{0\}$, we have $(T-\lambda I)x = 0$ for all $x\in K_{\lambda}$ so $K_{\lambda} = E_{\lambda}$, the eigenspace corresponding to $\lambda$. Then $K_{\lambda}$ has an ordered basis consisting of a union of disjoint cycles of eigenvectors (i.e. cycles of length $1$) and the Theorem is proved. Else, $R(U)$ is the non-trivial generalized eigenspace corresponding to $\lambda$ of $T\upharpoonright_{R(U)}$ and therefore $\lambda$ must be an eigenvalue of $T\upharpoonright_{R(U)}$, and we may proceed with the inductive hypothesis.

Note: I have used the fact that $K_{\lambda}$ is non-trivial iff $E_{\lambda}$ is non-trivial since if $m\geq 2$ is the multiplicity of $\lambda$ then $K_{\lambda} = N((T-\lambda I)^{m})\neq \{0\}\iff(\det(T-\lambda I))^{m} = 0 \iff\det(T-\lambda I) = 0$


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.