Can a Projection Be an Isomorphism If It Maps to a Proper Subset?

Click For Summary
In the discussion, it is established that a projection T from a vector space V onto a proper subset W cannot be an isomorphism due to the difference in their dimensions. Since W is a proper subset of V, it inherently has a smaller dimension, making T not one-to-one and thus not bijective. The projection is surjective only if it maps every vector in V to W, which is impossible if W lacks elements from V. The conversation also touches on the rank-nullity theorem, reinforcing that the existence of a vector in V not included in W confirms T's lack of surjectivity. Overall, the conclusion is that a projection onto a proper subset cannot be an isomorphism.
Myr73
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Pre-knowledge

If V and W are finite-dimensional vector spaces, and dim(V) does not equal dim(W) then there is no bijective linear transformation from V to W.

An isomorphism between V and W is a bijective linear transformation from V to W. That is, it is both an onto transformation and a one to one.1- Question
Let W be a proper subset of an vector space V, and let T be the projections onto W. Prove that T is not an isomorphism.

2- Answer

Since T is a projection onto W then, T(v)=w, therefore dim(V) > dim(W)

However since W is a proper subset of the vector space V, W is missing an element of V and therefore dim (w) is smaller then dim (V) and is not equal. Therefore it is not a one to one, and so is not an isomorphism.

This is my answer, however I am unsure if that is correct. It makes sense in my mind that a subset of a vector space is smaller then the vector space itself in dimension, however I am uncertain. Can you help me please?

Thank you,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,
only a few suggestions, in general a projection is from a vector space ##V## in a subspace (subset that is a vector space) ##W##, so as you said we have that ## dim(W) \leq dim(V) ##, in the ##=## case your projection is the identity and is bijective but if ## dim(W) < dim(V) ## the two dimensions are different so is not a bijection...
The second question is a conseguence of the first, in general projections are surjective and linerar operators so you can define ##T:V\rightarrow W## specifing where you send the basis of ##V## in ##W##, for example ##\{(x,y,0):x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\}## is a subspace of dimension ##2## of ##\mathbb{R}^{3}## you can project from ##\mathbb{R}^{3}## sending ##e_{1}=(1,0,0)\mapsto (1,0,0),e_{2}=(0,1,0)\mapsto (0,1,0)\mapsto (0,1,0),e_{3}=(0,0,1)\mapsto (0,0,0)##.

I hope to clarify something but in general your answer was correct,
by
Simone
 
  • Like
Likes Myr73
Ssnow said:
Hi,
only a few suggestions, in general a projection is from a vector space ##V## in a subspace (subset that is a vector space) ##W##, so as you said we have that ## dim(W) \leq dim(V) ##, in the ##=## case your projection is the identity and is bijective <Snip>

Sure, for one, an n-dim space does not have non-trivial n-dimensional subspaces.
 
  • Like
Likes Ssnow
Myr73 said:
<Snip>

However since W is a proper subset of the vector space V, W is missing an element of V and therefore dim (w) is smaller then dim (V) and is not equal. Therefore it is not a one to one, and so is not an isomorphism.

This is my answer, however I am unsure if that is correct. It makes sense in my mind that a subset of a vector space is smaller then the vector space itself in dimension, however I am uncertain. Can you help me please?

Thank you,

Maybe Rank-nullity will work: Given two bases with n vectors , the nullity will be 0 , so the dimension of the image is the entire space.
 
Since you are given that W is a proper subset of V, it follows that there is some vector in V that is NOT in W and therefore T is not surjective.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Since you are given that W is a proper subset of V, it follows that there is some vector in V that is NOT in W and therefore T is not surjective.

This is what I had assumed, I just waanted to verify that this is correct. Thanks all
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K