> We didn't end up covering Jordan Canonical form right?
> Or did I miss that?
You probably failed to attend the lecture during spring break week.
Attendance was actually quite sparse.
> Secondly, did we ever prove in class the existence of
> the adjoint in the case where T: V ---> W ??
> (exercise sec 6.3 15)
> The book leaves this as an exercise and I was having
> trouble with this proof...
It's not so bad. I'm sure that we could work it out at the board
pretty easily. However, we didn't discuss this particular issue in
class or in the homework. The authors make a somewhat strange choice
to treat the adjoint only in case W=V. That's OK, I guess, but I
don't see why they did what they did.
See you later,
Ken R
