Complex-Linear Matrices & C-Linear Transformations .... Tapp, Propn 2.4 ....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around proving an assertion related to Kristopher Tapp's Proposition 2.4 in the context of complex-linear transformations and matrices, specifically focusing on the conditions under which a map is considered complex-linear. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter seeks help to prove that a function ##F## is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear if and only if ##F(i \cdot X) = i \cdot F(X)## for all ##X \in \mathbb{C}^n##.
  • Some participants propose that the implication from ##\mathbb{C}##-linear to the condition is immediate, using the definition of linearity.
  • Others note that a map ##T:V\to W## is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear if it is ##\mathbb{R}##-linear and satisfies ##T(iv)=iT(v)## for all ##v\in V##, suggesting a two-line proof for the reverse implication.
  • Peter outlines a method to prove that ##F(cX) = cF(X)## for all ##X \in \mathbb{C}^n## and ##c \in \mathbb{C}## by breaking down the complex scalar into real and imaginary parts.
  • A later reply confirms Peter's reasoning as correct, validating his approach to the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While some participants agree with Peter's reasoning and confirm its correctness, the discussion includes varying levels of detail in the proofs and interpretations of the implications of linearity, indicating that multiple perspectives on the proof's structure exist.

Contextual Notes

The discussion references specific definitions and notation from Tapp's text, which may be crucial for understanding the claims made. However, the completeness of the proof and the assumptions involved remain open to interpretation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers interested in complex linear transformations, matrix theory, and those studying Tapp's work on matrix groups.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
TL;DR
I am reading Kristopher Tapp's book: Matrix Groups for Undergraduates.

I am currently focused on and studying Section 1 in Chapter2, namely:

"1. Complex Matrices as Real Matrices".

I need help in fully understanding how to prove an assertion related to Tapp's Proposition 2.4.
I am reading Kristopher Tapp's book: Matrix Groups for Undergraduates.

I am currently focused on and studying Section 1 in Chapter2, namely:

"1. Complex Matrices as Real Matrices".

I need help in fully understanding how to prove an assertion related to Tapp's Proposition 2.4.

Proposition 2.4 and some comments following it read as follows:

Tapp - Defn 2.3 & Proposition 2.4 ... .png


In the remarks following Proposition 2.4 we read the following:

" ... ... It (##F##) is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear if and only if ##F(i \cdot X) = i \cdot F(X)## for all ##X \in \mathbb{C}^n## ... "My question is as follows ... can someone please demonstrate a proof of the fact that ##F## is ##\mathbb(C)##-linear if and only if ##F(i \cdot X) = i \cdot F(X)## for all ##X \in \mathbb{C}^n## ...
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter===================================================================================
*** EDIT ***

After a little reflection it appears that " ... ##F## is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear ##\Longrightarrow F(i \cdot X) = i \cdot F(X)## ... " is immediate as ...

... taking ##c = i## we have ...

##F(c \cdot X ) = c \cdot F(X) \Longrightarrow F(i \cdot X) = i \cdot F(X)## for ##c \in \mathbb{C}##Is that correct?

Peter

=======================================================================================
=======================================================================================

Note that Tapp defines##\rho_n## and ##f_n## in the following text ... ...
Tapp - 1 - Chapter 2, Section 1 - PART 1 ... .png

Tapp - 2 - Chapter 2, Section 1 - PART 2 ... .png

Also note that ##R_B## (actually ##R_A##) is defined in the following text ...

Tapp - Defn 1.9 & Defn 1.10 ... .png
Hope the provision of the above text helps with definitions, notation and context ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The proof uses that a map ##T:V\to W## between ##\mathbb{C}##-vector spaces is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear if and only if if ##\mathbb{R}##-linear and ##T(iv)=iT(v)## for all ##v\in V##.

From left to right is obvious by the definition, from right to left requires a little easy two-line proof.

Note that in the proof one says that ##T## is ##\mathbb{C}## linear if and only if ##T(iv) = iT(v)## for all ##v\in V## since it was already established that ##T## was ##\mathbb{R}##-linear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Math_QED said:
The proof uses that a map ##T:V\to W## between ##\mathbb{C}##-vector spaces is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear if and only if if ##\mathbb{R}##-linear and ##T(iv)=iT(v)## for all ##v\in V##.

From left to right is obvious by the definition, from right to left requires a little easy two-line proof.

Note that in the proof one says that ##T## is ##\mathbb{C}## linear if and only if ##T(iv) = iT(v)## for all ##v\in V## since it was already established that ##T## was ##\mathbb{R}##-linear.
Thanks for the post and the hint ...

We are considering ##F \ : \ \mathbb{C}^n \to \mathbb{C}^n## where ##F = f_n^{ -1 } \circ R_B \circ f_n## ...

We know that ##F## is ##\mathbb{R}##-linear ... that is ...

##F(X + Y) = F(X) + F(Y)## for all ##X, Y \in \mathbb{C}^n## ... ... ... ... ... (1)

... and ...

##F(rX) = r F(X)## for all ##X \in \mathbb{C}^n## and ##r \in \mathbb{R}## ... ... ... ... ... (2)We have to prove that ##F## is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear ... ...

... that is ...

##F(X + Y) = F(X) + F(Y)## for all ##X, Y \in \mathbb{C}^n## ...

... which holds from the ##\mathbb{R}##-linear case ...

and ...

##F(cX) = cF(X)## for all ##X \in \mathbb{C}^n## and ##c \in \mathbb{C}## ... ... ... ... ... (3)So ... essentially we have to prove (3) ...

So then ... let ##c = a + bi## ... and proceed as follows ...

##F(cX) = F( (a+bi)X)##

##= F(aX + biX)##

##= F(aX) + F(biX)## since ##F## is ##\mathbb{R}##-linear

##= F(aX) + iF(bX)## since ##F(iY) = iF(Y)##

##= aF(X) + biF(X)## since ##F## is ##\mathbb{R}##-linear

##= (a +bi)F(X)##

##= cF(X)##Hope the above is correct ... ...

Peter
 
Math Amateur said:
Thanks for the post and the hint ...

We are considering ##F \ : \ \mathbb{C}^n \to \mathbb{C}^n## where ##F = f_n^{ -1 } \circ R_B \circ f_n## ...

We know that ##F## is ##\mathbb{R}##-linear ... that is ...

##F(X + Y) = F(X) + F(Y)## for all ##X, Y \in \mathbb{C}^n## ... ... ... ... ... (1)

... and ...

##F(rX) = r F(X)## for all ##X \in \mathbb{C}^n## and ##r \in \mathbb{R}## ... ... ... ... ... (2)We have to prove that ##F## is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear ... ...

... that is ...

##F(X + Y) = F(X) + F(Y)## for all ##X, Y \in \mathbb{C}^n## ...

... which holds from the ##\mathbb{R}##-linear case ...

and ...

##F(cX) = cF(X)## for all ##X \in \mathbb{C}^n## and ##c \in \mathbb{C}## ... ... ... ... ... (3)So ... essentially we have to prove (3) ...

So then ... let ##c = a + bi## ... and proceed as follows ...

##F(cX) = F( (a+bi)X)##

##= F(aX + biX)##

##= F(aX) + F(biX)## since ##F## is ##\mathbb{R}##-linear

##= F(aX) + iF(bX)## since ##F(iY) = iF(Y)##

##= aF(X) + biF(X)## since ##F## is ##\mathbb{R}##-linear

##= (a +bi)F(X)##

##= cF(X)##Hope the above is correct ... ...

Peter

Yes, completely correct. Well done!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K