The question is from Hoffman and Kunze

Let $T$ be a linear operator on a finite-dimensional vector space $V$. Suppose that:

(a) the minimal polynomial for $T$ is a power of an irreducible polynomial ;

(b) the minimal polynomial is equal to the characteristic polynomial.

Show that no non-trivial $T$-invariant subspace has a complementary $T$-invariant subspace

I know from a,b that $T$ is not diagonalizable; possible irrelevant.

I know that every $T$-admissible subspace has a complementary subspace which is also invariant under $T$. So I basically want to show that $W=\{0\}$ and its complement are the only $T$-admissible subspaces. Not sure how to do this as $T$-admissible requires $T$-invariant.

Can somebody point me in the right direction for how to solve this problem?

(preferable without posting a solution.)

  • $\begingroup$ You don't know that $T$ is not diagonalizable: perhaps the characteristic polynomial is irreducible. Note that $T$ induces a linear mapping on any $T$-invariant subspace, and think about the minimal polynomial of $T$ on the subspace, and on any complement. $\endgroup$ – Chris Godsil May 1 '13 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisGodsil : Good point about T being diagonalizable, I misunderstood "irreducible" to imply non-linear which we have a theorem about. For T-invariant subspace the minimal polynomial of T restricted to that subspace must divide the minimal polynomial of T on the whole space. The product of a minimal polynomial restricted T-invariant subspace and its compliment should be the minimal polynomial of the space. right? $\endgroup$ – AvatarOfChronos May 1 '13 at 12:11
  • $\begingroup$ @AvatarOfChronos: last sentence of comment: not the product, but the least common multiple. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Jan 12 '15 at 10:34

An essential hypothesis is (b), implying that no nonzero polynomial of degree less than the dimension of the vector space annihilates$~T$ (as such a degree is incompatible with being a multiple of the characteristic polynomial). Let me call this condition, which has many equivalent statements, that $T$ is cyclic (actually it is the $K[X]$-module defined by$~T$ that is cyclic, but I don't want to mention $K[X]$-modules here). One basic fact is that the restriction of a cyclic operator$~T$ to any $T$-invariant subspace is still cyclic (as by the way is the operator that $T$ induces in the quotient modulo this subspace); let me prove that first.

If the restriction of$~T$ to a $T$-invariant subspace of dimension$~d$ were annihilated by a polynomial$~P[T]$ with $\deg(P)<d$, then the image$~W$ of$~P[T]$ would be a $T$-invariant subspace of dimension at most$~\dim V-d$ (by rank-nullity), and annihilated by some$~Q$ with $\deg(Q)\leq\dim W$ (for instance the characteristic polynomial of $T|_W$). But then $QP$ annihilates$~T$ (as $P[T]$ maps $V$ into $W$ which is contained in the kernel of $Q[T]$), and $\deg(QP)<\dim V$, contradicting the hypothesis that $T$ is cyclic.

Now for the actual question. Let $P$ be the irreducible polynomial of point (a), which I may suppose monic, and $P^k$ the minimal polynomial of$~T$. Suppose for a contradiction that $V$ decomposes as a direct sum $W_1\oplus W_2$ of two proper $T$-invariant subspaces. The minimal polynomials of the restrictions of$~T$ to the summands both divide the minimal polynomial $P^k$, and since by the above these restrictions are cyclic, their degrees are $\dim W_1$ respectively $\dim W_2$; in particular they are proper monic divisors of$~P^k$. But from the irreducibility of$~P$ this implies they are of the form$~P^l$ with $l<k$. But then their least common multiple, which gives the minimal polynomial of$~T$, cannot be $P^k$, a contradiction.

  • $\begingroup$ Dear Marc, in the final paragraph, it seems the proof works for any sum $W_1+W_2=V$. (I think minimal polynomial of any sum of subspaces equals least common multiple of minimal polynomials of restrictions.) At first glance, this seems to be a stronger conclusion than being indecomposable. (That is, not being a sum of proper subspaces.) What am I missing? $\endgroup$ – Arrow Apr 12 '19 at 19:02
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the proof (in the first paragraph) that restriction of a cyclic operator to an invariant subspace remains cyclic - it seems to require existence of a minimal polynomial. On the other hand, it seems that over a PID, any submodule of a cyclic module is itself cyclic. So no finite dimension or minimal polynomial assumptions are necessary. Is this correct? $\endgroup$ – Arrow Apr 19 '19 at 18:37

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.