Prove diagonalizability of operator $T$ [closed]












1












$begingroup$


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 🙂










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



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
















1












$begingroup$


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 🙂










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



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














1












1








1





$begingroup$


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 🙂










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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














  • 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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$


  1. This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.


  2. 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.



  3. 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 $T = 0$.







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$


    1. 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 $B$.


    2. Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.


    3. 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?







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




















      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      1












      $begingroup$


      1. This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.


      2. 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.



      3. 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 $T = 0$.







      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        1












        $begingroup$


        1. This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.


        2. 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.



        3. 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 $T = 0$.







        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$


          1. This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.


          2. 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.



          3. 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 $T = 0$.







          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




          1. This isn't true. Consider $T= begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \ 0 & 0 end{bmatrix}$. We have $ker T = operatorname{Im} T = operatorname{span}left{begin{bmatrix} 1 \ 0 end{bmatrix}right}$.


          2. 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.



          3. 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 $T = 0$.








          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 19 '18 at 20:16









          mechanodroidmechanodroid

          27.8k62447




          27.8k62447























              1












              $begingroup$


              1. 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 $B$.


              2. Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.


              3. 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?







              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$


                1. 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 $B$.


                2. Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.


                3. 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?







                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$


                  1. 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 $B$.


                  2. Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.


                  3. 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?







                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$




                  1. 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 $B$.


                  2. Just take an invertible but not diagonalisable operator (e.g. a nilpotent operator with the identity added), and $operatorname{Ker} T = { 0 }$.


                  3. 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?








                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Dec 20 '18 at 21:09

























                  answered Dec 19 '18 at 16:22









                  Theo BenditTheo Bendit

                  18.9k12253




                  18.9k12253















                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Wiesbaden

                      Marschland

                      Dieringhausen