Prove diagonalizability of operator $T$ [closed]
$begingroup$
I got homework to prove some question and after almost 5 hours I gave up.
The questions are:
1) operator $T : Bbb R^nto Bbb R^n$, prove that $operatorname{Im}(T)∩ operatorname{Ker}(T)={0}.$
2) prove or disprove : Linear operator $T : Bbb R^n toBbb R^n $, $T$ is diagonalizable if and only if $operatorname{Im}(T)∩ operatorname{Ker}(T)={0}$.
3) $T : Bbb R^n to Bbb R^n$ linear operator with all eigenvalues $=0 $, prove that $T$ is diagonalizable only if $T$ is the zero operator.
Thanks 🙂
diagonalization
$endgroup$
closed as off-topic by José Carlos Santos, Lord Shark the Unknown, KReiser, Carl Schildkraut, metamorphy Dec 20 '18 at 6:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – José Carlos Santos, Carl Schildkraut, metamorphy
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I got homework to prove some question and after almost 5 hours I gave up.
The questions are:
1) operator $T : Bbb R^nto Bbb R^n$, prove that $operatorname{Im}(T)∩ operatorname{Ker}(T)={0}.$
2) prove or disprove : Linear operator $T : Bbb R^n toBbb R^n $, $T$ is diagonalizable if and only if $operatorname{Im}(T)∩ operatorname{Ker}(T)={0}$.
3) $T : Bbb R^n to Bbb R^n$ linear operator with all eigenvalues $=0 $, prove that $T$ is diagonalizable only if $T$ is the zero operator.
Thanks 🙂
diagonalization
$endgroup$
closed as off-topic by José Carlos Santos, Lord Shark the Unknown, KReiser, Carl Schildkraut, metamorphy Dec 20 '18 at 6:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – José Carlos Santos, Carl Schildkraut, metamorphy
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
1
$begingroup$
Have you copied this down correctly? Because the first statement is just wrong.
$endgroup$
– Aweygan
Dec 19 '18 at 14:44
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! It's important to show your work even if it is an incomplete attempt. Especially considering it is a homework question! Also please check the following link on how to properly type in MSE: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
$endgroup$
– Test123
Dec 19 '18 at 14:48
$begingroup$
What characterisations of diagonalisability do you know? This could radically change the answer to this question.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 19 '18 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Aweygan Yes that’s the question 😕
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:43
$begingroup$
@TheoBendit I know that there is base B with vectors with eigenvalues .
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I got homework to prove some question and after almost 5 hours I gave up.
The questions are:
1) operator $T : Bbb R^nto Bbb R^n$, prove that $operatorname{Im}(T)∩ operatorname{Ker}(T)={0}.$
2) prove or disprove : Linear operator $T : Bbb R^n toBbb R^n $, $T$ is diagonalizable if and only if $operatorname{Im}(T)∩ operatorname{Ker}(T)={0}$.
3) $T : Bbb R^n to Bbb R^n$ linear operator with all eigenvalues $=0 $, prove that $T$ is diagonalizable only if $T$ is the zero operator.
Thanks 🙂
diagonalization
$endgroup$
I got homework to prove some question and after almost 5 hours I gave up.
The questions are:
1) operator $T : Bbb R^nto Bbb R^n$, prove that $operatorname{Im}(T)∩ operatorname{Ker}(T)={0}.$
2) prove or disprove : Linear operator $T : Bbb R^n toBbb R^n $, $T$ is diagonalizable if and only if $operatorname{Im}(T)∩ operatorname{Ker}(T)={0}$.
3) $T : Bbb R^n to Bbb R^n$ linear operator with all eigenvalues $=0 $, prove that $T$ is diagonalizable only if $T$ is the zero operator.
Thanks 🙂
diagonalization
diagonalization
edited Dec 19 '18 at 20:17
mechanodroid
27.8k62447
27.8k62447
asked Dec 19 '18 at 14:42
Or Yehuda Ben ShimolOr Yehuda Ben Shimol
132
132
closed as off-topic by José Carlos Santos, Lord Shark the Unknown, KReiser, Carl Schildkraut, metamorphy Dec 20 '18 at 6:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – José Carlos Santos, Carl Schildkraut, metamorphy
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by José Carlos Santos, Lord Shark the Unknown, KReiser, Carl Schildkraut, metamorphy Dec 20 '18 at 6:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – José Carlos Santos, Carl Schildkraut, metamorphy
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
1
$begingroup$
Have you copied this down correctly? Because the first statement is just wrong.
$endgroup$
– Aweygan
Dec 19 '18 at 14:44
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! It's important to show your work even if it is an incomplete attempt. Especially considering it is a homework question! Also please check the following link on how to properly type in MSE: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
$endgroup$
– Test123
Dec 19 '18 at 14:48
$begingroup$
What characterisations of diagonalisability do you know? This could radically change the answer to this question.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 19 '18 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Aweygan Yes that’s the question 😕
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:43
$begingroup$
@TheoBendit I know that there is base B with vectors with eigenvalues .
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:46
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Have you copied this down correctly? Because the first statement is just wrong.
$endgroup$
– Aweygan
Dec 19 '18 at 14:44
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! It's important to show your work even if it is an incomplete attempt. Especially considering it is a homework question! Also please check the following link on how to properly type in MSE: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
$endgroup$
– Test123
Dec 19 '18 at 14:48
$begingroup$
What characterisations of diagonalisability do you know? This could radically change the answer to this question.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 19 '18 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Aweygan Yes that’s the question 😕
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:43
$begingroup$
@TheoBendit I know that there is base B with vectors with eigenvalues .
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:46
1
1
$begingroup$
Have you copied this down correctly? Because the first statement is just wrong.
$endgroup$
– Aweygan
Dec 19 '18 at 14:44
$begingroup$
Have you copied this down correctly? Because the first statement is just wrong.
$endgroup$
– Aweygan
Dec 19 '18 at 14:44
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! It's important to show your work even if it is an incomplete attempt. Especially considering it is a homework question! Also please check the following link on how to properly type in MSE: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
$endgroup$
– Test123
Dec 19 '18 at 14:48
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! It's important to show your work even if it is an incomplete attempt. Especially considering it is a homework question! Also please check the following link on how to properly type in MSE: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
$endgroup$
– Test123
Dec 19 '18 at 14:48
$begingroup$
What characterisations of diagonalisability do you know? This could radically change the answer to this question.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 19 '18 at 14:53
$begingroup$
What characterisations of diagonalisability do you know? This could radically change the answer to this question.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 19 '18 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Aweygan Yes that’s the question 😕
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:43
$begingroup$
@Aweygan Yes that’s the question 😕
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:43
$begingroup$
@TheoBendit I know that there is base B with vectors with eigenvalues .
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:46
$begingroup$
@TheoBendit I know that there is base B with vectors with eigenvalues .
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:46
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
- This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.
The direction "$T$ diagonalizable $implies ker T cap operatorname{Im} T = {0}$" is true, the other direction isn't.
Indeed, let ${b_1, ldots, b_n}$ be a basis of eigenvectors for $T$, and take $y in ker T cap operatorname{Im} T$. There exists $x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i b_i$ such that $y = Tx = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i$.
We have
$$0 = Ty = T^2x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda^2 b_i$$
so $alpha_ilambda_i^2 =0$ for $i=1, ldots, n$. Hence if $alpha_ine 0$, we get $lambda_i = 0$ so $y = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i = 0$.
For the other direction consider $$T = begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 1 \ 0 & 0 & 1end{bmatrix}$$
$T$ is not diagonalizable but $ker T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 \ 0end{bmatrix}right}$ and $operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 1 \ 0end{bmatrix}, begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 0 \ 1end{bmatrix}right}$ have trivial intersection.
If $T = 0$ then $T$ is clearly diagonalizable. Conversely, if $T$ is diagonalizable with all zero eigenvalues, then $T$ diagonalizes to the matrix $0$, so $T = 0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $T$ has a basis of eigenvalues, then either $0$ is an eigenvalue or not. If it isn't, then $operatorname{ker} T = { 0 }$, and the intersection result is trivial. Otherwise, we may express the basis of eigenvectors in the form
$$B = (u_1, ldots, u_m, v_1, ldots, v_n)$$
where $u_1, ldots, u_m$ are eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, and $v_i$ is an eigenvector corresponding to $lambda_i neq 0$ for all $i = 1, ldots, n$. I claim that
$$operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n).$$
To see containment in the $subseteq$ direction, consider the image of an arbitrary element of the span of $B$. To see containment in the $supseteq$ direction, show that $v_i = T(lambda_i^{-1} v_i) in operatorname{Im} T$ for all $i$. Then,
$$operatorname{Ker} T cap operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (u_1, ldots, u_m) cap operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n) = { 0 },$$
by linear independence of $B$.Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.
If $0$ is the only eigenvalue of $T$, and there is a full basis of eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, then what does $T$ do to an arbitrary linear combination of these eigenvectors?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
- This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.
The direction "$T$ diagonalizable $implies ker T cap operatorname{Im} T = {0}$" is true, the other direction isn't.
Indeed, let ${b_1, ldots, b_n}$ be a basis of eigenvectors for $T$, and take $y in ker T cap operatorname{Im} T$. There exists $x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i b_i$ such that $y = Tx = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i$.
We have
$$0 = Ty = T^2x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda^2 b_i$$
so $alpha_ilambda_i^2 =0$ for $i=1, ldots, n$. Hence if $alpha_ine 0$, we get $lambda_i = 0$ so $y = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i = 0$.
For the other direction consider $$T = begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 1 \ 0 & 0 & 1end{bmatrix}$$
$T$ is not diagonalizable but $ker T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 \ 0end{bmatrix}right}$ and $operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 1 \ 0end{bmatrix}, begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 0 \ 1end{bmatrix}right}$ have trivial intersection.
If $T = 0$ then $T$ is clearly diagonalizable. Conversely, if $T$ is diagonalizable with all zero eigenvalues, then $T$ diagonalizes to the matrix $0$, so $T = 0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
- This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.
The direction "$T$ diagonalizable $implies ker T cap operatorname{Im} T = {0}$" is true, the other direction isn't.
Indeed, let ${b_1, ldots, b_n}$ be a basis of eigenvectors for $T$, and take $y in ker T cap operatorname{Im} T$. There exists $x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i b_i$ such that $y = Tx = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i$.
We have
$$0 = Ty = T^2x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda^2 b_i$$
so $alpha_ilambda_i^2 =0$ for $i=1, ldots, n$. Hence if $alpha_ine 0$, we get $lambda_i = 0$ so $y = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i = 0$.
For the other direction consider $$T = begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 1 \ 0 & 0 & 1end{bmatrix}$$
$T$ is not diagonalizable but $ker T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 \ 0end{bmatrix}right}$ and $operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 1 \ 0end{bmatrix}, begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 0 \ 1end{bmatrix}right}$ have trivial intersection.
If $T = 0$ then $T$ is clearly diagonalizable. Conversely, if $T$ is diagonalizable with all zero eigenvalues, then $T$ diagonalizes to the matrix $0$, so $T = 0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
- This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.
The direction "$T$ diagonalizable $implies ker T cap operatorname{Im} T = {0}$" is true, the other direction isn't.
Indeed, let ${b_1, ldots, b_n}$ be a basis of eigenvectors for $T$, and take $y in ker T cap operatorname{Im} T$. There exists $x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i b_i$ such that $y = Tx = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i$.
We have
$$0 = Ty = T^2x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda^2 b_i$$
so $alpha_ilambda_i^2 =0$ for $i=1, ldots, n$. Hence if $alpha_ine 0$, we get $lambda_i = 0$ so $y = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i = 0$.
For the other direction consider $$T = begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 1 \ 0 & 0 & 1end{bmatrix}$$
$T$ is not diagonalizable but $ker T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 \ 0end{bmatrix}right}$ and $operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 1 \ 0end{bmatrix}, begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 0 \ 1end{bmatrix}right}$ have trivial intersection.
If $T = 0$ then $T$ is clearly diagonalizable. Conversely, if $T$ is diagonalizable with all zero eigenvalues, then $T$ diagonalizes to the matrix $0$, so $T = 0$.
$endgroup$
- This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.
The direction "$T$ diagonalizable $implies ker T cap operatorname{Im} T = {0}$" is true, the other direction isn't.
Indeed, let ${b_1, ldots, b_n}$ be a basis of eigenvectors for $T$, and take $y in ker T cap operatorname{Im} T$. There exists $x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i b_i$ such that $y = Tx = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i$.
We have
$$0 = Ty = T^2x = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda^2 b_i$$
so $alpha_ilambda_i^2 =0$ for $i=1, ldots, n$. Hence if $alpha_ine 0$, we get $lambda_i = 0$ so $y = sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i lambda_ib_i = 0$.
For the other direction consider $$T = begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 1 \ 0 & 0 & 1end{bmatrix}$$
$T$ is not diagonalizable but $ker T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 \ 0end{bmatrix}right}$ and $operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 1 \ 0end{bmatrix}, begin{bmatrix} 0 \ 0 \ 1end{bmatrix}right}$ have trivial intersection.
If $T = 0$ then $T$ is clearly diagonalizable. Conversely, if $T$ is diagonalizable with all zero eigenvalues, then $T$ diagonalizes to the matrix $0$, so $T = 0$.
answered Dec 19 '18 at 20:16
mechanodroidmechanodroid
27.8k62447
27.8k62447
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $T$ has a basis of eigenvalues, then either $0$ is an eigenvalue or not. If it isn't, then $operatorname{ker} T = { 0 }$, and the intersection result is trivial. Otherwise, we may express the basis of eigenvectors in the form
$$B = (u_1, ldots, u_m, v_1, ldots, v_n)$$
where $u_1, ldots, u_m$ are eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, and $v_i$ is an eigenvector corresponding to $lambda_i neq 0$ for all $i = 1, ldots, n$. I claim that
$$operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n).$$
To see containment in the $subseteq$ direction, consider the image of an arbitrary element of the span of $B$. To see containment in the $supseteq$ direction, show that $v_i = T(lambda_i^{-1} v_i) in operatorname{Im} T$ for all $i$. Then,
$$operatorname{Ker} T cap operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (u_1, ldots, u_m) cap operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n) = { 0 },$$
by linear independence of $B$.Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.
If $0$ is the only eigenvalue of $T$, and there is a full basis of eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, then what does $T$ do to an arbitrary linear combination of these eigenvectors?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $T$ has a basis of eigenvalues, then either $0$ is an eigenvalue or not. If it isn't, then $operatorname{ker} T = { 0 }$, and the intersection result is trivial. Otherwise, we may express the basis of eigenvectors in the form
$$B = (u_1, ldots, u_m, v_1, ldots, v_n)$$
where $u_1, ldots, u_m$ are eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, and $v_i$ is an eigenvector corresponding to $lambda_i neq 0$ for all $i = 1, ldots, n$. I claim that
$$operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n).$$
To see containment in the $subseteq$ direction, consider the image of an arbitrary element of the span of $B$. To see containment in the $supseteq$ direction, show that $v_i = T(lambda_i^{-1} v_i) in operatorname{Im} T$ for all $i$. Then,
$$operatorname{Ker} T cap operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (u_1, ldots, u_m) cap operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n) = { 0 },$$
by linear independence of $B$.Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.
If $0$ is the only eigenvalue of $T$, and there is a full basis of eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, then what does $T$ do to an arbitrary linear combination of these eigenvectors?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $T$ has a basis of eigenvalues, then either $0$ is an eigenvalue or not. If it isn't, then $operatorname{ker} T = { 0 }$, and the intersection result is trivial. Otherwise, we may express the basis of eigenvectors in the form
$$B = (u_1, ldots, u_m, v_1, ldots, v_n)$$
where $u_1, ldots, u_m$ are eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, and $v_i$ is an eigenvector corresponding to $lambda_i neq 0$ for all $i = 1, ldots, n$. I claim that
$$operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n).$$
To see containment in the $subseteq$ direction, consider the image of an arbitrary element of the span of $B$. To see containment in the $supseteq$ direction, show that $v_i = T(lambda_i^{-1} v_i) in operatorname{Im} T$ for all $i$. Then,
$$operatorname{Ker} T cap operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (u_1, ldots, u_m) cap operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n) = { 0 },$$
by linear independence of $B$.Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.
If $0$ is the only eigenvalue of $T$, and there is a full basis of eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, then what does $T$ do to an arbitrary linear combination of these eigenvectors?
$endgroup$
If $T$ has a basis of eigenvalues, then either $0$ is an eigenvalue or not. If it isn't, then $operatorname{ker} T = { 0 }$, and the intersection result is trivial. Otherwise, we may express the basis of eigenvectors in the form
$$B = (u_1, ldots, u_m, v_1, ldots, v_n)$$
where $u_1, ldots, u_m$ are eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, and $v_i$ is an eigenvector corresponding to $lambda_i neq 0$ for all $i = 1, ldots, n$. I claim that
$$operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n).$$
To see containment in the $subseteq$ direction, consider the image of an arbitrary element of the span of $B$. To see containment in the $supseteq$ direction, show that $v_i = T(lambda_i^{-1} v_i) in operatorname{Im} T$ for all $i$. Then,
$$operatorname{Ker} T cap operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span} (u_1, ldots, u_m) cap operatorname{span} (v_1, ldots, v_n) = { 0 },$$
by linear independence of $B$.Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.
If $0$ is the only eigenvalue of $T$, and there is a full basis of eigenvectors corresponding to $0$, then what does $T$ do to an arbitrary linear combination of these eigenvectors?
edited Dec 20 '18 at 21:09
answered Dec 19 '18 at 16:22
Theo BenditTheo Bendit
18.9k12253
18.9k12253
add a comment |
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Have you copied this down correctly? Because the first statement is just wrong.
$endgroup$
– Aweygan
Dec 19 '18 at 14:44
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! It's important to show your work even if it is an incomplete attempt. Especially considering it is a homework question! Also please check the following link on how to properly type in MSE: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
$endgroup$
– Test123
Dec 19 '18 at 14:48
$begingroup$
What characterisations of diagonalisability do you know? This could radically change the answer to this question.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 19 '18 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Aweygan Yes that’s the question 😕
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:43
$begingroup$
@TheoBendit I know that there is base B with vectors with eigenvalues .
$endgroup$
– Or Yehuda Ben Shimol
Dec 19 '18 at 15:46