Can a Linear Transformation Be Onto If the Codomain's Dimension Is Higher?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of linear transformations, specifically addressing the conditions under which a linear transformation T from an n-dimensional space V to an m-dimensional space W can be onto. It is established that if m > n, T cannot be onto, as the rank of T, represented by dim(R(T)), is limited by the dimension of V. Conversely, if m < n, T cannot be one-to-one due to the existence of infinitely many solutions for the mapping. The participants emphasize the importance of understanding the dimensions of the respective spaces and the implications of the rank-nullity theorem.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear transformations and their properties
  • Familiarity with the rank-nullity theorem
  • Knowledge of vector spaces and their dimensions
  • Ability to work with basis vectors in linear algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the rank-nullity theorem in detail
  • Explore examples of linear transformations between different dimensional spaces
  • Learn about the implications of basis vectors in vector spaces
  • Investigate the concept of one-to-one and onto functions in linear algebra
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on linear algebra, as well as anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of linear transformations and their properties.

discoverer02
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Linear Transformation -- Onto

I'm having trouble with the first part of the following problem:

Let T be a linear transformation from an n-dimensional space V into an m-dimensional space W.

a) If m>n, show that T cannot be a mapping from V onto W.

b) if m<n, show that T cannot be one-to-one.

Part b) I can see. I think. T(v) = Av = w The matrix A will have more columns than rows (more unknowns than equations), so there will be infinitely solutions (more than one mapping from a v in V to a w in W).

I'm stumped by part a). I'm not seeing how m>n guarantees that there are w 's in W that aren't part of R(T).

A nudge in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why doesn't the same approach work?
 
I'm wondering the same thing, so there must be something that I'm not seeing.

I'll think about it some more.

Thanks.
 
Well, for a linear map: T:V^n \rightarrow W^m where n&lt;m

There is a useful formula which describes subspaces of V and W in terms of conditions they satisfy with respect to T. Then have a look at the dimension of these subspaces, the dimension of V, and the dimension of W. You should be able to establish that there are certain elements in W that aren't the image of any element in V. Hint: Consider a basis of W.
 
Last edited:
Hint: Do you think that T inverse is defined for all of W?
 
OK, let's see what I've got so far:

A basis of W would consist of 3 elements, A basis of V would consist of 2 elements.

T(x + y ) = T(x ) + T(y )
T(kx ) = kT(x )

I also have the equation dim(ker(T)) + dim(R(T)) = dim(R2) = 2

Anyway you look at it dim(R(T)) <= 2. This means that any other element in R(T) is a linear combination of these two elements. But W has a basis of 3 elements meaning that R(T) could not possibly contain at least one of W's basis elements.

I think this makes sense finally. I'll think about it some more just to make sure it's solid.

Thanks very much for the hints.

discoverer02
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K