I have seen numerous proofs of this result, and understand why they are true. For instance here and here use the same method - writing $v = Pv + (I - P)v$ and then continuing on in a straightforward manner. However, I was curious as to why it might not be sufficient to prove the result in the following way:
Since $P^2 = P$, then we have $P(P - I) = 0$, implying that $P = 0$ or $P = I$. Then if $P = 0$, $\text{null}(P) = V$ and $\text{range}(P) = \{0\}$, so $V = \text{null}(P) \oplus \text{range}(P).$ Else, if $P = I$, then $\text{range}(P) = V$ and $\text{null}(P) = \{0\}$, giving the same desired result.
What am I missing in the above logic - is there a linear map $P$ that satisfies the above relation but is not the zero function or the identity function?
Thanks in advance!
Here's where you go wrong:
It is true for real numbers (or numbers from your preferred field) that, for $a,b \in \Bbb R$, $ab = 0$ implies that $a = 0$ or $b = 0$. The analogous statement for matrices, however, is not true. That is, we can find two non-zero matrices $A,B$ such that $AB = 0$.
For a concrete example, consider the projection matrix $$ P = \pmatrix{1&0\\0&0} $$ verify that $P^2 = P$. However, you can see that we have neither $P = 0$ or $P = I$. Consequently, $P$ and $(P-I)$ are non-zero matrices which have a product of $0$.