MHB Correspondence Theorem for Vector Spaces - Cooperstein Theorem 2.15

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Bruce Cooperstein's book: Advanced Linear Algebra ... ...

I am focused on Section 2.3 The Correspondence and Isomorphism Theorems ... ...

I need help with understanding Theorem 2.15 ...

Theorem 2.15 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 5169It appears to me (and somewhat surprises me) that the proof of part (i) of the above theorem does not seem to depend on the linearity of T and hence would be true for any function/mapping f ...

But is my analysis correct ...

Could someone please confirm that I am correct ... or point out my error(s) ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For any surjective function:

$f: A \to f(A)$ it follows that for any subset $Y \subseteq f(A)$ that $f(f^{-1}(Y)) = Y$.

However, it takes a linear transformation to ensure the image of a vector space is again a vector space.
 
Deveno said:
For any surjective function:

$f: A \to f(A)$ it follows that for any subset $Y \subseteq f(A)$ that $f(f^{-1}(Y)) = Y$.

However, it takes a linear transformation to ensure the image of a vector space is again a vector space.

Oh! Excellent point ... I had not though of that ...

Thanks for the help ...

Peter
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top