Additive identity over linear transformation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that for a linear transformation T from vector space V to vector space W, the image of the additive identity in V, T(0_v), equals the additive identity in W, 0_w. Participants are exploring definitions and properties related to additive identities and inverses in the context of linear transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to use the definition of additive identity and properties of linear transformations to establish the relationship between T(0_v) and 0_w. Questions arise regarding the validity of certain steps and the necessity of proving underlying assumptions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing hints and suggestions for reasoning. Some participants express uncertainty about the steps taken, while others propose alternative methods to reach the conclusion. There is no explicit consensus, but various lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of proving certain properties of linear transformations, such as the behavior of additive inverses and the implications of linearity. There is an acknowledgment of the need to clarify assumptions related to the additive identity and its properties.

autre
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
Given vector spaces V, W over a field, and linear transformation [itex]T:V\rightarrow W[/itex], prove [itex]T(0_{v})=0_{w}[/itex] where 0_v and 0_w are additive identities of V and W.

I'm trying to use the definition of additive identity. So, [itex]\forall\vec{v}\in V,\vec{v}+0=\vec{v+0=0}[/itex]. Where do I go from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't really see why v + 0 = 0... unless v = 0.
However, you may want to look at v + (-v) = 0.
 
Woops, I meant [itex]\forall\vec{v}\in V,\vec{v}+0=\vec{0+v=\vec{v}}.[/itex] Not the additive inverse.
 
Yep, I guess you can use that as well.
You will still need the additive inverse at some point though (if not in V, then at least in W to show that T(v) - T(v) = 0W).
 
Here's a hint: Consider [itex]T(0_v+0_v)[/itex].
 
Would this line of reasoning work?

[itex]T(0_{v})=T(0_{v}+0_{v})=T(0_{v}+\vec{v}-\vec{v}+0_{v})=T(0_{v}+\vec{v})-T(0_{v}+\vec{v})=T(\vec{v})-T(\vec{v})=\vec{w}-\vec{w}=0_{w}.[/itex]
 
That looks good to me! In fact you can make it even simpler If you want by noting [itex]T(0_v)=T(0_v+0_v)=T(0_v) + T(0_v)[/itex] which is only possible if [itex]T(0_v)=?[/itex]
 
[itex]T(0_{v})=0_{w}[/itex], or the additive identity in W?
 
Exactly , it must be the zero of W.
 
  • #10
autre said:
Would this line of reasoning work?

[itex]T(0_{v})=T(0_{v}+0_{v})=T(0_{v}+\vec{v}-\vec{v}+0_{v})=T(0_{v}+\vec{v})-T(0_{v}+\vec{v})=T(\vec{v})-T(\vec{v})=\vec{w}-\vec{w}=0_{w}.[/itex]
It's correct, but you're using the following two results without proving them
  • T(-x) is the additive inverse of T(x) for all x.
  • -0=0
The first one is no more obvious than the statement you're trying to prove.

If you're going to use these results, there's no need to involve a new vector v. You could just write [tex]T(0)=T(0+0)=T(0+(-0))=T(0)+T(-0)=T(0)-T(0)=0.[/tex] I prefer the method Theorem suggested.
 
  • #11
An alternative way to write it down is:
T(0) = T(0 + 0) = T(0) + T(0) because of linearity.
Now add the additive inverse of T(0) (whatever it is, but there must be one) to both sides, and you get
T(0) + (-T(0)) = T(0) + T(0) + (-T(0))
0 = T(0)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K