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 ?)

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

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 […]

The description below comes from József Beck. Combinatorial games. Tic-tac-toe theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, MR2402857 (2009g:91038). Given a finite set $S$ of points in the plane $\mathbb R^2$, consider the following game between two players Maker and Breaker. The players alternat […]

Yes. This is a consequence of the Davis-Matiyasevich-Putnam-Robinson work on Hilbert's 10th problem, and some standard number theory. A number of papers have details of the $\Pi^0_1$ sentence. To begin with, take a look at the relevant paper in Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert's problems (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Northern Illinois Un […]

I am looking for references discussing two inequalities that come up in the study of the dynamics of Newton's method on real-valued polynomials (in one variable). The inequalities are fairly different, but it seems to make sense to ask about both of them in the same post. Most of the details below are fairly elementary, they are mostly included for comp […]

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 […]

First of all, $f(z)+e^z\ne 0$ by the first inequality. It follows that $e^z/(f(z)+e^z)$ is entire, and bounded above. You should be able to conclude from that.

Yes. The standard way of defining these sequences goes by assigning in an explicit fashion to each limit ordinal $\alpha$, for as long as possible, an increasing sequence $\alpha_n$ that converges to $\alpha$. Once this is done, we can define $f_\alpha$ by diagonalizing, so $f_\alpha(n)=f_{\alpha_n}(n)$ for all $n$. Of course there are many possible choices […]

I disagree with the advice of sending a paper to a journal before searching the relevant literature. It is almost guaranteed that a paper on the fundamental theorem of algebra (a very classical and well-studied topic) will be rejected if you do not include mention on previous proofs, and comparisons, explaining how your proof differs from them, etc. It is no […]

No, the rank of a set $x$ is the least $\alpha$ such that $x\in V_{\alpha+1}$. Note that if $\alpha$ is limit, any $x\in V_\alpha$ belongs to some $V_\beta$ with $\beta