403/503 – The fundamental theorem of algebra via linear algebra

The argument we gave in class for the existence of eigenvectors for operators on finite dimensional complex vector spaces (and for the existence of invariant planes for operators on finite dimensional real vector spaces) uses the fundamental theorem of algebra. One can actually prove the existence of eigenvectors without appealing to this result, although the argument is more complicated.

As a corollary, one obtains a linear algebra proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra, which seems like a nice outcome.

The details can be found in a nice paper by Harm Derksen, currently available through his website or in JSTOR (American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 110 (7) (2003), 620-623). A variation of the proof (perhaps more accessible) is in this paper by Keith Conrad, currently available through his website.

There is a slight disadvantage to both papers (which is perhaps the reason why I am not presenting their result in class) if we want to follow the approach of the textbook, and avoid introducing determinants at this stage. The problem is Corollary 4 in Conrad’s paper or Lemma 4 in Derksen’s, that operators on odd dimensional real vector spaces admit eigenvectors. Their proofs use determinants. The proof we gave (or are in the midst of giving) in lecture avoids determinants, but of course uses the fundamental theorem (so we can find an invariant plane and then argue by induction).

Can you find a way of obtaining this result without appealing to either determinants or the fundamental theorem, so we have a proof of the existence of eigenvectors compatible with the philosophy of the textbook and entirely self-contained?

(Note that an odd degree polynomial with real coefficients has a real root, and this can be proved very easily. From this, the argument for operators on does not require the fundamental theorem, and we can extend this to operators on , again avoiding the theorem, because we have explicit formulas that allow us to factor a quartic into the product of two quadratics. Can we find an argument for operators on ?)

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, February 26th, 2010 at 3:01 pm and is filed under 403/503: Linear Algebra II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

I learned of this problem through Su Gao, who heard of it years ago while a post-doc at Caltech. David Gale introduced this game in the 70s, I believe. I am only aware of two references in print: Richard K. Guy. Unsolved problems in combinatorial games. In Games of No Chance, (R. J. Nowakowski ed.) MSRI Publications 29, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. […]

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

Suppose $M$ is an inner model (of $\mathsf{ZF}$) with the same reals as $V$, and let $A\subseteq \mathbb R$ be a set of reals in $M$. Suppose further that $A$ is determined in $M$. Under these assumptions, $A$ is also determined in $V$. The point is that since winning strategies are coded by reals, and any possible run of the game for $A$ is coded by a real, […]

The two concepts are different. For example, $\omega$, the first infinite ordinal, is the standard example of an inductive set according to the first definition, but is not inductive in the second sense. In fact, no set can be inductive in both senses (any such putative set would contain all ordinals). In the context of set theory, the usual use of the term […]

I will show that for any positive integers $n,\ell,k$ there is an $M$ so large that for all positive integers $i$, if $i/M\le \ell$, then the difference $$ \left(\frac iM\right)^n-\left(\frac{i-1}M\right)^n $$ is less than $1/k$. Let's prove this first, and then argue that the result follows from it. Note that $$ (i+1)^n-i^n=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\binom nk i^ […]

I think it is cleaner to argue without induction. If $n$ is a positive integer and $n\ge 8$, then $7n$ is both less than $n^2$ and a multiple of $n$, so at most $n^2-n$ and therefore $7n+1$ is at most $n^2-n+1

Let PRA be the theory of Primitive recursive arithmetic. This is a subtheory of PA, and it suffices to prove the incompleteness theorem. It is perhaps not the easiest theory to work with, but the point is that a proof of incompleteness can be carried out in a significantly weaker system than the theories to which incompleteness actually applies. It is someti […]