Bilinear mapping between quotient spaces

  • Thread starter Thread starter lineintegral1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mapping quotient
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving properties of a bilinear mapping g between finite-dimensional linear spaces L and M. Participants emphasize the need to show that the induced mapping g' on the quotient spaces L/L_0 and M/M_0 is well-defined, particularly by demonstrating that if two elements belong to the same cosets, their mappings yield the same result. The proof hinges on the linearity of g, which allows the conclusion that differences of representatives from the same cosets lie in the respective kernels, ensuring g' is a valid function. Clarifications on quotient spaces as sets of equivalence classes help participants grasp the concept better. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding the conditions for bilinear mappings in the context of quotient spaces.
lineintegral1
Messages
77
Reaction score
1
Problem: Let L and M be finite dimensional linear spaces over the field K and let g: L\times M \rightarrow K be a bilinear mapping. Let L_0 be the left kernel of g and let M_0 be the right kernel of g.

a) Prove that dim L/L_0 = dim M/M_0.

b) Prove that g induces the bilinear mapping g': L/L_0 \times M/M_0 \rightarrow K, g'(l+L_0, m+M_0) = g(l,m), for which the left and right kernels are zero.

I am trying to prove b) before a) (I think this would make a) relatively trivial). However, I am still getting used to the notion of quotient spaces as sets of equivalence classes. I am unsure as to how to deal with the bilinear mapping of equivalence classes. All that I have seen so far deal with vector spaces. Perhaps someone can give me some insight as to how to show that this mapping is well defined? How can I visualize this better? My professor is of little help, so I appreciate any insights anyone can give me.

Thanks all!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You must prove that if l+L_0=l^\prime +L_0 and m+M_0=m^\prime+M_0, then g^\prime(l+L_0,m+M_0) = g^\prime(l^\prime+L_0,m^\prime+M_0). So you must actually prove g(l,m)=g(l^\prime,m^\prime)...
 
but...this is obvious because g is linear in l and m, and l-l' is in L0 and m-m' is in M0

(g(l,m) = g(l',m') means g(l,m) - g(l',m') = 0.

but g(l,m) - g(l',m') = g(l,m) - g(l',m) + g(l',m) - g(l',m')

= g(l-l',m) + g(l',m-m') =...?)
 
And what do you know about l-l' and m-m' ?
 
we are assuming l + L0 = l' + L0

so l-l' is in 0 + L0 = L0.

the same for m-m', with regard to M0.

we have to have these conditions, for g' to be well-defined as a function

(we are defining g' over cosets, by using g defined on elements.

if we do not have the same image for g(l',m') and g(l,m) when l,l' and m,m'

are in the same cosets of L0 and M0,

g' isn't even a function, much less bilinear).
 
Wow, okay, so that makes it obvious. Thanks for the help guys, I appreciate it. Neat stuff!
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
880
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K