My professor wrote this on the board:
Claim: there is a bijection between submodules and $T$-invariant subspaces {$T(w) \subset W$}.
Proof:
If $W \subset V$ is $T$-invariant, then $f(X).w = f(T)(w) \in W.$ so $W$ is a submodule. Conversely, let $W \subset V$ be a submodule, then for $w \in W,$ $X.w = T(w) \in W$ and hence $W$ is $T$-invariant.
Before that she wrote this:
Let $k$ be a field, $V$ a $k-$ vector space, $n = \dim_kV < \infty.$$R = k[x], T \in L(V)=$ linear operators on $V.$
$T$ has minimal polynomial and characteristic polynomial in $R.$
$V$ has the structure of an $R$-module, a structure induced by $T.$
$$\varphi : R \rightarrow \operatorname{End_k(V)} = L(V)$$ $$1 \mapsto I$$ $$X \mapsto T$$
So $\varphi(f(X)) = f(T)$
Scalar multiplication in $V$ is $f(X).v = f(T)(v).$ then she asked what are the submodules of $V$ and she began to prove the above claim.
But I do not understand the following:
1- Why she defined $\varphi$ like that?
2- why the scalar multiplication in $V$ looks like that?
3- I do not understand at all how the forward direction proves that it is a submodule, why we are applying $f(X)$ to $w$ to prove this?
4- why in the backward direction we are applying $X$ to $w$?
could anyone help me understand all these points?