1
$\begingroup$

When learning about generalized eigenspace, there are two statements from two different textbooks which I was learning, seems contradict to the other one.

In Chapter 8 of the book Linear Algebra Done Right, 3rd edition by Sheldon Alxer, a theorem(Theorem 8.11 , Description of generalized eigenspaces) was stated like this

Suppose $\mathcal{T}\in \mathcal{L}(V)$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}$. Then $G(\lambda, \mathcal{T})=\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda \mathcal{I})^{\text{dim}V}$

Here $G(\lambda, \mathcal{T})$ means the generalized eigenspace of $\mathcal{T}$ corresponding to eigenvalue $\lambda$, and "Null" stands for the kernal space.

While in another textbook(Linear Algebra, Special for mathematic major by Shangzhi Li), there is also a similar theorem. Here's what it said (translated from Chinese, which can be a little bit unprecise)

Suppose an operator $\mathcal{T}$ defined on a n-dimensional linear space $V$ has $t$ different eigenvalues $\lambda_1,...,\lambda_t$, and the characteristic polynomial has the form$$P_\mathcal{T}(\lambda)=(\lambda-\lambda_1)^{n_1}...(\lambda-\lambda_t)^{n_t}.$$Then for each eigenvalule $\lambda_i(1\leq i\leq t)$, a subspace $\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda_i \mathcal{I})^{n_i}$ was formed by a zero vector and all of the generalized eigenvectors with respect to $\lambda_i$, which has $n_i$ dimensions.

Now I'm getting quite unsure about the description of generalized eigenspace.

Comparing these two theorems. The first one states that the generalized eigenspace $G(\lambda, \mathcal{T})$ can be described as $\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda\mathcal{I})^{\text{dim}V}$, while the second one suggests that the description of generalized eigenspace with respect to $\lambda_i$ seems ought to have the form $\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda_i\mathcal{I})^{n_i}$, where $n_i$ is known to be the algebraic multiplicity of $\lambda_i$, appeared from the characteristic polynomial. However, it is clear that $\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda_i\mathcal{I})^{n_i}\neq \text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda_i\mathcal{I})^{\text{dim}V}$ for some specified eigenvalue $\lambda_i$, which seems like a contradiction.

More interestingly, there is also an exercise problem in today's aftercalss-assignment which gives me an even more confusing conclusion.

Suppose $\mathcal{T}\in\mathcal{L}(V)$ has a minimal polynomial $$D_{\mathcal{T}}(\lambda)=(\lambda-\lambda_1)^{k_1}...(\lambda-\lambda_t)^{k_t}$$ Prove that $G(\lambda_i, \mathcal{T})=\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda\mathcal{I})^{k_i}$

From now on I'm getting totally dizzy... is it possible that these three statements are not all correct? Or if I missed some important things? I do think it is not possible that $$\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda_i \mathcal{I})^{\text{dim}V}=\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda_i \mathcal{I})^{n_i}=\text{Null}(\mathcal{T}-\lambda_i \mathcal{I})^{k_i}$$

Can anyone help me with that? Thanks a lot!

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "However, it is clear ..." is wrong. The sequence $\ker (T - \lambda)^k$ stabilises, i.e. there is a $k_0$ such that $\ker (T - \lambda)^k = \ker (T - \lambda)^{k+1}$ for $k \geqslant k_0$. And that $k_0$ is not larger than the algebraic multiplicity of the eigenvalue $\lambda$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Sep 30 '20 at 11:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel Fischer Could you please show me why such $k_0$ exists? And why it is not larger than the algebraic multiplicity of the eigenvalue? Thanks $\endgroup$ – Scanners Sep 30 '20 at 11:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Let $d_k = \dim \bigl(\ker (t - \lambda)^k\bigr)$. Then $0 = d_0 \leqslant d_1 \leqslant d_2 \leqslant \ldots$, and on the other hand $d_k \leqslant \dim V$ for all $k$. A bounded monotonic sequence of integers is eventually constant. That $k_0$ is the exponent of $(X - \lambda)$ in the minimal polynomial of $T$ is more or less immediate from the definitions. If you know the Jordan normal form, you can also see it in that. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Sep 30 '20 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ @ Daniel Fischer♦ Okay I think I've got the key point, however it is still hard for me to understand why $k_0$ is the exponent of $X-\lambda$, can you elaborate on that a little bit? P.s. I do not think Axler's book includes very much about Jordan normal form. Can you recommend some textbooks which expain that section well? $\endgroup$ – Scanners Sep 30 '20 at 12:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Scanners Axler's book does say a bit about why the dimension of the generalized eigenspace is the exponent of $(x - \lambda)$ (except that he "defines things backwards" in a sense). See in particular theorem 8.10 (p. 169 second edition) $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Sep 30 '20 at 12:49
1
$\begingroup$

As Daniel says in the comments, all of these definitions are equivalent; that is,

$$\text{ker}(T - \lambda)^{\dim V} = \text{ker}(T - \lambda)^{n_i} = \text{ker}(T - \lambda)^{k_i}.$$

This can be seen using Jordan normal form but that's overkill. Let $m(t) = \prod (t - \lambda_i)^{k_i}$ be the minimal polynomial of $T$ and let $v \in \text{ker}(T - \lambda_j)^{\dim V}$ for some fixed $j$. Then we have

$$m(T) v = \left( \prod_{i \neq j} (T - \lambda_i)^{k_i} \right) (T - \lambda_j)^{k_j} v.$$

We want to show that $v_j = (T - \lambda_j)^{k_j} v = 0$. The identity above gives that $v_j$ lies in the kernel of $\prod_{i \neq j} (T - \lambda_i)^{k_i}$. This is contained in (and in fact is exactly) the sum of the generalized eigenspaces of each $\lambda_i, i \neq j$, and a basic fact about generalized eigenspaces of different eigenvalues is that they are linearly independent. On the other hand, $v_j$ lies in the generalized eigenspace of $\lambda_j$. Hence $v_j = 0$ as desired.

More explicitly, we can prove the following.

Lemma: Suppose $p, q \in \mathbb{C}[t]$ are two polynomials such that $p(T) v = q(T) v = 0$. Then $g = \gcd(p, q)$ also satisfies $g(T) v = 0$.

Proof. Abstractly the point is that $\{ p \in \mathbb{C}[t] : p(T) v = 0 \}$ is an ideal of $\mathbb{C}[t]$ and hence principal. Concretely, we can apply Bezout's lemma to find polynomials $a, b$ such that $ap + bq = g$, which gives $a(T) p(T) v + b(T) p(T) v = 0 = g(T) v$. $\Box$

So $v_j = (T - \lambda_j)^{k_j} v$ satisfies $(T - \lambda_j)^{\dim V - k_j} v_j = 0$, but it also satisfies $\left( \prod_{i \neq j} (T - \lambda_i)^k \right) v_j = 0$, and these two polynomials have no roots in common so their $\gcd$ is equal to $1$. Hence $v_j = 0$.

$\endgroup$

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.