The proof is pictured in its entirety here. So in general, I think I understand the point of the proof and some of the steps, but I seem to have a gap in my understanding. It's at the very end where he says "which means that T - λjI is injective for at least one j" that I get confused. How is it that we know it's injective, and why exactly does that imply there must be an eigenvalue?
Asked
Active
Viewed 280 times
3
-
Is not injective for for a least one $j$? – Jonathan Davidson Jul 03 '17 at 06:00
1 Answers
5
Read your linked page a little more carefully. Axler says, "$T - \lambda_j I$ is not injective for at least one $j$. . . .
The product of injective operators is injective. Thus if
$\prod_1^m (T - \lambda_j I) \tag{1}$
is not injective, at least one of the factors fails to be injective as well.
Robert Lewis
- 72,871