Proving $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$ for Linear Operator $T$

In summary, the linear operator $T$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ defined by $T(x_1, x_2, x_3)= (3x_1, x_1-x_2, 2x_1+x_2+x_3)$ is invertible, with the rule for $T^{-1}$ being $T^{-1}(x_1, x_2, x_3) = (\frac{1}{3}x_1, -x_2, -\frac{2}{3}x_1+x_2)$. The proof of this is shown by demonstrating that $T(v) = 0$ only when $v = 0
  • #1
Guest2
193
0
Problem: Let $T$ be the linear operator on $\mathbb{R}^3$ defined by

$$T(x_1, x_2, x_3)= (3x_1, x_1-x_2, 2x_1+x_2+x_3)$$

Is $T$ invertible? If so, find a rule for $T^{-1}$ like the one which defines $T$.

Prove that $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0.$


Attempt:

$(T|I)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 &0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}\right] \to \left[\begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 &0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -2/3 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right] = (I|T^{-1})$

Thus $T$ is invertible as it row-reduces to $I$ and

$$T^{-1} = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
& 1/3 & 0 & 0 \\
& 0 & -1 & 0 \\
& -2/3 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right]$$

Thus the rule is $T^{-1}(x_1, x_2, x_3) = (\frac{1}{3}x_1, -x_2, -\frac{2}{3}x_1+x_2).$

But I'm stuck on showing that $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$. I could directly manipulate this, but I think I'm supposed to somehow use linearity/earlier part of the question. Is this the case? Could someone please clarify.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Guest said:
Problem: Let $T$ be the linear operator on $\mathbb{R}^3$ defined by

$$T(x_1, x_2, x_3)= (3x_1, x_1-x_2, 2x_1+x_2+x_3)$$

Is $T$ invertible? If so, find a rule for $T^{-1}$ like the one which defines $T$.

Prove that $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0.$


Attempt:

$(T|I)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 &0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}\right] \to \left[\begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 &0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -2/3 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right] = (I|T^{-1})$

Thus $T$ is invertible as it row-reduces to $I$ and

$$T^{-1} = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
& 1/3 & 0 & 0 \\
& 0 & -1 & 0 \\
& -2/3 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right]$$

Thus the rule is $T^{-1}(x_1, x_2, x_3) = (\frac{1}{3}x_1, -x_2, -\frac{2}{3}x_1+x_2).$

But I'm stuck on showing that $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$. I could directly manipulate this, but I think I'm supposed to somehow use linearity/earlier part of the question. Is this the case? Could someone please clarify.

Hi Guest,

The matrix you've found for $T^{-1}$ is not actually the inverse.
In particular this shows because it's degenerate.
That is, it has a column with only zeroes.
More generally, its determinant is zero, meaning it's non-invertible.

The problem is that when you created $T$, the second row of the leftmost column should contain a $1$ instead of a $0$.

To show that $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$, we might use the Caylay-Hamilton theorem, that says that the characteristic equation of a matrix also holds for the matrix itself.
Do you know what the characteristic equation is? (Wondering)
 
  • #3
Hi, I like Serena,

Thanks for the reply.

The characteristic equation is $P(\lambda) = \det(\lambda I - T) = (3-\lambda)(\lambda^2-1)$

So then $P(T) = 0 \implies (3I-T)(T^2-I) = 0 \implies (T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0.$
 
  • #4
To show $T$ is invertible, it suffices to show $T(v) = 0 \implies v = 0$.

This is not hard to demonstrate:

If $T(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (0,0,0)$, then $3x_1 = 0$, so $x_1 = 0$.

Now $T(0,x_2,x_3) = (0,-x_2,x_2+x_3)$, and if this is $(0,0,0)$ we must have $x_2 = 0$.

Finally, since $T(0,0,x_3) = (0,0,x_3)$ if the RHS is 0, we must have $x_3 = 0$.

Of course, this tells us $T^{-1}$ exists, but does not tell us what it IS.

But if $T(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (1,0,0)$, it follows that $(x_1,x_2,x_3) = T^{-1}(1,0,0)$, which would give us the first column of $T^{-1}$'s matrix (in the standard basis).

Equating $(3x_1,x_1-x_2,2x_1+x_2+x_3) = (1,0,0)$ gives us $x_1 = \frac{1}{3}$, which then tells us $x_2 = \frac{1}{3}$, and thus $x_3 = -1$.

Solving $T(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (0,1,0)$ and $T(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (0,0,1)$ similarly gives us the second and third columns of $T^{-1}$. You should then be able to give a similar form for $T^{-1}$ as was given for $T$.

I do not know if the Cayley-Hamilton theorem is available for you to use-that is the "lazy" way to go. Otherwise, you would have to compute the given product the "long way".

Knowing $T^3 - 3T^2 - T + 3I = 0$, does give us another way to compute $T^{-1}$:

$T^3 - 3T^2 - T = -3I$
$T(-\frac{1}{3}(T^2 - 3T - I)) = I$

so, evidently:

$T^{-1} = -\frac{1}{3}(T^2 - 2T - I)$
 
  • #5
Deveno said:
...
This is such a nice method, thank you!
 

FAQ: Proving $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$ for Linear Operator $T$

How can we prove $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$ for a linear operator $T$?

There are a few different methods that can be used to prove this equality. One approach is to show that both sides of the equation have the same effect on any vector in the vector space. Another approach is to use the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, which states that every linear operator satisfies its own characteristic polynomial. This can be used to show that $(T^2-I)(T-3I)$ is equal to the zero operator.

What is the significance of $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$ for a linear operator $T$?

This equality indicates that the linear operator $T$ satisfies a polynomial of degree 2, which has roots at both 1 and 3. This means that the operator has eigenvalues of 1 and 3, and the eigenspace associated with each eigenvalue is invariant under the action of $T$. This can provide useful information about the behavior of the operator and its associated vector space.

Can this equality be used to find the eigenvalues and eigenspaces of $T$?

Yes, the equality $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$ can be used to find the eigenvalues and eigenspaces of $T$. By setting the polynomial equal to 0, we can solve for the eigenvalues of $T$ (in this case, 1 and 3). Then, by finding the nullspaces of $(T-I)$ and $(T-3I)$, we can find the eigenspaces of $T$ associated with each eigenvalue.

Are there any special cases where this equality may not hold?

Yes, there are some special cases where $(T^2-I)(T-3I) = 0$ may not hold. For example, if the vector space is not finite-dimensional, the Cayley-Hamilton theorem used to prove this equality may not apply. Additionally, if the characteristic polynomial of $T$ has other roots besides 1 and 3, this equality may not hold.

Can this equality be extended to other linear operators besides $T$?

Yes, this equality can be extended to other linear operators. In fact, the proof of this equality can be generalized to any linear operator whose characteristic polynomial has roots at 1 and 3. However, the specific eigenvalues and eigenspaces associated with each root may vary depending on the operator.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
285
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top