Does pv=0 Imply pv₁=pv₂=0 in Monic Polynomial Problems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rapple
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial
rapple
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let us say that p(c) is a monic polynomial such that when applied to a particular v, we have pv=0. Let V be a finite dimensional vector space. Let V be the direct sum of k invariant subspaces. Then v = v_1+...+v_k.

When I apply pv=0 does this imply that pv_1=pv_2=0.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


p(z)=a_0+a_1z+...a_mz^m
p(T)v=a_0+a_1(T)(v_1+v_2..v_m)+...a_m(T^m)(v_1+v_2..v_m)
We know that a_0,a_1 are not all 0s.If they are then pv = 0 for all v. So we must have that a_0 = -(the rest) or the terms must cancel out each other.
or we have (T)(v_1+v_2..v_m)=0 hence T^m(v_1+v_2..v_m)=0.

This is where I am stuck
 
Physics news on Phys.org


What do you mean by "applying a polynomial to a vector"?
 


I mean pv=0 for a particular v
 
Thread 'Use greedy vertex coloring algorithm to prove the upper bound of χ'
Hi! I am struggling with the exercise I mentioned under "Homework statement". The exercise is about a specific "greedy vertex coloring algorithm". One definition (which matches what my book uses) can be found here: https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~laci/HANDOUTS/greedycoloring.pdf Here is also a screenshot of the relevant parts of the linked PDF, i.e. the def. of the algorithm: Sadly I don't have much to show as far as a solution attempt goes, as I am stuck on how to proceed. I thought...
Back
Top