Abstract Nonsense

Crushing one theorem at a time

Reducibility and the Fundamental Theorem of Reducible Subspaces


Point of post: In this post we discuss the concepts covered in section 40 of Halmos, but extend it further to discuss reducibility by arbitrary (finite) number of subspaces. Moreover, we discuss what is sometimes called that ‘Fundamental Theorem of Reducible Subspaces’.

Motivation

In our last post we discussed the concepts of invariant subspaces, and some characterizations of them. In this post we discuss a stronger version of invariant subspaces and show how a reducible endomorphism can be canonically decomposed into the direct sum of other endomorphisms. In essence, a reducible transformation is as nice as one can reasonably expect a endomorphism to be.

Reducible Transformations

Let \mathscr{V} be an F-space. Then, for T\in\text{End}\left(\mathscr{V}\right) we call T m-reducible if there exists m subspaces \mathscr{W}_1,\cdots,\mathscr{W}_m\leqslant\mathscr{V} such that

\displaystyle \mathscr{V}=\bigoplus_{k=1}^{m}\mathscr{W}_k

and \mathscr{W}_k is invariant under T for k\in[m]. Alternatively ,we say that T is m-reduced by \mathscr{W}_1,\cdots,\mathscr{W}_m.

Considering our last few posts on the direct sums of matrices we have relatively little work to do now, except to notice that:

Theorem: Let \mathscr{V} be an F space and suppose that T\in\text{End}\left(\mathscr{V}\right) is m-reduced by \mathscr{W}_1,\cdots,\mathscr{W}_m. Then,

\displaystyle T=\bigoplus_{k=1}^{m}T_{\mid\mathscr{W}_k}

Proof: We evidently have, by prior theorem that T_{\mid\mathscr{W}_k}\in\text{End}\left(\mathscr{W}_k\right),\text{ }k\in[m] and the rest follows by noticing that

\displaystyle T\left(\sum_{k=1}^{m}w_k\right)=\sum_{k=1}^{m}T(w_k)=\sum_{k=1}^{m}T_{\mid\mathscr{W}_k}(w_k)

from where the conclusion follows. \blacksquare

References:

1. Halmos, Paul R.  Finite-dimensional Vector Spaces,. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1974. Print

Advertisements

December 22, 2010 - Posted by | Halmos, Linear Algebra, Uncategorized | , ,

1 Comment »

  1. […] next theorem gives us a similar formulation for reducibility of a linear transformation in terms of projections. […]

    Pingback by Projections (Pt. III) « Abstract Nonsense | January 13, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: