This was a question given on a take-home exam that I have turned in. The deadline has passed, and I want to see if I gave a sufficient argument.
The question is posed as follows:
Is it true that $V = \operatorname{Ker}(A) \bigoplus \operatorname{R}(A)$? Give a condition in terms of the eigenvalues of $A$ under which the claim holds.
Here, $V$ is assumed to be finite-dimensional, and $A$ is a square matrix that is the representation of some linear operator.
My solution is summarized as follows: If $0$ were not an eigenvalue of $A$, the claim holds, as the kernel of $A$ is zero-dimensional. The columns of $A$ then span $V$ by the Invertible Matrix Theorem, and any $v \in V$ can be expressed as a unique linear combination of the columns of $A$.
Otherwise, suppose the kernel of $A$ is $p$-dimensional. Choose a basis for this kernel, and note that the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalue $0$ are precisely those vectors in the basis of $\operatorname{Ker}(A)$. Now construct a basis for each eigenspace $E_{\lambda_i}$. These build a collection of invariant subspaces under $A$ and form the range. So, consider specifically the basis of the range
$$ \operatorname{R}(A) = \operatorname{span} \{ v_{r_1, 1}, v_{r_1, 2}, \ldots , v_{r_{m_i}, m_i} \} $$
where each eigenspace has dimension $m_i$, and the sum of these dimensions is $n - p$ (by Rank-Nullity). Now consider the linear combination
$$ 0 = \sum_i c_{r_i, i} v_{r_i, i} + \sum_j d_{k_j, j} v_{k_j, j} $$
where $r_i$ indexes those vectors in the range and $k_j$ those in the kernel. Now apply $A$ on both sides. Since the second sum is in the kernel, its image is $0$. The first sum contains vectors that form a basis for the range, so each $c_{r_i, i} = 0$. Finally, the second sum forms a basis of the kernel, so each $c_{k_j, j} = 0$. We conclude $0$ has a unique representation, and $V = \operatorname{Ker}(A) \bigoplus \operatorname{R}(A)$.
While I did rush to get this in, I think the condition can be summarized as a TL;DR: Each eigenspace needs enough eigenvectors.
Are there flaws in my solution? Is there a condition nicer than "having enough eigenvectors?"