In this proof of Jordan normal form in the Kaye and Wilson book, then for a transformation $T$ with minimal polynomial $m(x) = (x-e)^k$, they take a basis of $\texttt{ker}\;T$, extend it to a basis of $\texttt{ker}\;T^2$, ..., extend it to a basis of $\texttt{ker}\;T^k$. They then take the elements $a_1,...,a_n$ in $\texttt{ker}\;T^k$ but not $\texttt{ker}\;T^{k-1}$ then take $b_i = T(a_i)$ and claim the $b_i$,$a_j$ form a linearly independent set, so then they extend the list of the $b_i$ so that the span of the $a_j$, $b_i$ is $\texttt{ker}\;T^{k-1}$ not $\texttt{ker}\;T^{k-2}$. They then take $c_i = T(b_i)$ and carry on this process.

After the proof they say the crucial point is that the basis modification does give a basis. Then the lemma they prove is: If $ \{u_1,...,u_r \}$ is a basis for $\texttt{ker}\;T^j$ is extended to a basis of $\texttt{ker}\; T^{j+1}$ $\{u_1,...,u_r,v_1,...,v_s\}$ and to a basis $\{u_1,...,u_r,v_1,...,v_s,w_1,...,w_t\}$ of $\texttt{ker}\;T^{j+2}$ then $\{u_1,...,u_r,T(w_1),...,T(w_t)\}$ is a linearly independent subset of $\texttt{ker}\;T^{j+1}$.

I can't work out why they prove $\{u_1,...,u_r,T(w_1),...,T(w_t)\}$ is linearly independent - where does this come into the proof for Jordan normal form? For the proof for Jordan normal form surely they'd want to show that $\{w_1,...,w_t,T(w_1),...,T(w_t)\}$ is linearly independent since in the proof they claim the $b_i$,$a_j$ form a linearly independent set (in which case they wouldn't need to extend the basis of $u_i$ to a basis of $u_i$,$v_j$ and then to a basis $u_i$,$v_j$,$w_k$ - they wouldn't need the $u_i$ at all).


It seems you changed the notion? They assume $m_T=x^k$...

I don't think they care about $a_j,b_i$ being linearly independent. What they want is, if their basis (of $V$) contains elements $a_1, \dots , a_{n_1}$ in $\ker T^l \setminus \ker T^{l-1}$ then also $g(a_1), \dots g(a_{n_1})$ is contained in the basis.

What they do is define their modified basis recursively starting at $\ker T^k$. At the $l$th stage they then apply $g$ to the elements of the basis contained $\ker T^{l+1} \setminus \ker T^{l}$ and extend the resulting elements to a basis of $T^{l}$ without messing around in the remaining basis elements of $T^{l-1}$(they need that this basis restricts also to a basis of $T^i$ for $i<l-1$) to be able to do the next step.

And I think the lemma should do this step.

What looks a bit strange to me is that they choose variables $a_i, \dots z_i$ for basis elements of the different powers of $T$ in the book.


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.