MHB Are Injective R-Linear Mappings in C Necessarily Surjective?

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Reinhold Remmert's book "Theory of Complex Functions" ...

I am focused on Chapter 0: Complex Numbers and Continuous Functions ... and in particular on Section 1.4: Angle-Preserving Mappings ... ...

I need help in order to fully understand a remark of Remmert's regarding injective $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mappings The relevant part of Remmert's section on Angle-Preserving Mappings reads as follows:View attachment 8550In the above text from Remmert we read the following:

" ... ... we look at $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear injective (consequently also bijective) mappings $$T : \mathbb{C}\to \mathbb{C}$$ ... ... " Can someone please explain how/why exactly $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear injective mappings are necessarily surjective ... ... ?

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Remmeert - Start of Section 1.4, Ch. 0 ... .png
    Remmeert - Start of Section 1.4, Ch. 0 ... .png
    17 KB · Views: 118
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
In the above text from Remmert we read the following:

" ... ... we look at $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear injective (consequently also bijective) mappings $$T : \mathbb{C}\to \mathbb{C}$$ ... ... "

Can someone please explain how/why exactly $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear injective mappings are necessarily surjective ... ... ?
Considered as a vector space over $\Bbb{R}$, $\Bbb{C}$ is a two-dimensional space. It is a theorem from linear algebra (the rank-nullity theorem) that the rank plus the nullity of a linear map on a vector space equals the dimension of the space. In this case, if the mapping is injective then its nullity is zero, so its rank is equal to the dimension of the space. That is equivalent to saying that the map is surjective, and therefore bijective.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K