Finding Kernel of P: Steps to Show Ker(P) is in Ker(P°P)

  • Thread starter Maths2468
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Kernel
If so, what can we say about ##P(P(0))##?In summary, to show that the Kernel (P) is a subset of the kernel (P ° P), we need to find elements x such that P(x) is in the kernel of P. This can be done by considering the element 0 and determining the value of P(P(0)).
  • #1
Maths2468
16
0
I have a linear transformation P:z→z
I want to show the Kernel (p) is a subset of the kernel (P ° P)

I know that the composite function is defined by (P ° P)(x)=P(P(x))

Where do I begin with this?
To find ker(P) I would do P(x)=0 but I am not sure how I would do this here.

What steps should I follow?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Maths2468 said:
I have a linear transformation P:z→z
I want to show the Kernel (p) is a subset of the kernel (P ° P)

I know that the composite function is defined by (P ° P)(x)=P(P(x))

Where do I begin with this?
To find ker(P) I would do P(x)=0 but I am not sure how I would do this here.

What steps should I follow?
We want to find elements ##x## such that ##P(x)\in\operatorname{ker}(P)##. Is 0 such an element?
 

Related to Finding Kernel of P: Steps to Show Ker(P) is in Ker(P°P)

1. What is the purpose of finding the kernel of a linear transformation?

The kernel of a linear transformation is a set of all vectors that get mapped to the zero vector. It helps in understanding the behavior of the transformation and determining its invertibility.

2. What are the steps involved in showing that Ker(P) is in Ker(P°P)?

The steps involved are:

  • Assume that v is an element of Ker(P), i.e. P(v) = 0.
  • Then, show that P°P(v) = 0 as well, using the definition of P°P and the fact that P(v) = 0.
  • Since v was an arbitrary element of Ker(P), this proves that Ker(P) is a subset of Ker(P°P).

3. What is the significance of showing that Ker(P) is in Ker(P°P)?

This shows that every vector in the kernel of P is also in the kernel of P°P. In other words, P°P has a bigger kernel than P. This is useful in proving that P°P is not invertible, as invertible transformations have a trivial kernel containing only the zero vector.

4. Can the steps be modified to show that Ker(P) is in Ker(Q°P)?

Yes, the steps can be modified to show that Ker(P) is a subset of Ker(Q°P). The only difference would be in the second step where you would use the definition of Q°P instead of P°P.

5. Is it possible for Ker(P) to be equal to Ker(P°P)?

Yes, it is possible for Ker(P) to be equal to Ker(P°P). This would happen when every vector in Ker(P) also gets mapped to the zero vector by P°P. In other words, P is already a self-adjoint transformation, and there is no need for the additional step of finding the kernel of P°P.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
113
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
866
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
337
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
544
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top