Does Linear Algebra Prove Mutual Exclusivity of Transformation Properties?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a linear transformation T: V->V, where V is a finite-dimensional vector space. Participants are tasked with showing that exactly one of two conditions holds: either T(v) = 0 for some non-zero vector v in V, or T(x) = v has a solution x in V for every vector v in V. The focus is on understanding the implications of these conditions and their mutual exclusivity.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the conditions, questioning whether the truth of one condition necessarily negates the other. There are attempts to clarify the definitions and assumptions behind the conditions, with some participants expressing confusion over the logical connections between them.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants actively questioning the reasoning presented and seeking clarification on the implications of the conditions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of the problem, but no consensus has been reached on the logical structure or the necessary proofs.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the nature of the linear transformation T, particularly regarding its behavior at the zero vector and the implications of having a non-zero vector mapped to zero. Participants are also grappling with the definitions of solutions in the context of linear transformations.

stunner5000pt
Messages
1,447
Reaction score
5
Let T: V->V be a linear transformation where V is finite dimensional. Show ath exactly one of (i) an (ii) holds
i) T(v) = 0 for some v not zero in V
ii) T(x) = v has a solution x in V for every v in V


do they mean that if i holds then ii cannot hold?
Ok suppose i holds
T(v) = 0 for some v in V, v not zero
then T(T(v)) = T(0) = 0
let T(v) = x
then T(x) = 0
only solution here is x = v
So T(x) = 0 for all x. ANd thus is not possible for T(x) = v if T(v) = 0
 
Physics news on Phys.org
do they mean that if i holds then ii cannot hold?
There's more to it than that...


Anyways, your proof doesn't make any sense to me: here are the problems I see:

T(v) = 0 for some v in V, v not zero
then T(T(v)) = T(0) = 0
let T(v) = x
Okay. I don't see the point of defining x to be zero, though.

then T(x) = 0
only solution here is x = v
(1) Solution to what?
(2) For what are you solving? You haven't written down any unknowns!
(3) Why is it a solution?
(4) Why is it the only solution?


So T(x) = 0 for all x.
You've defined x to be T(v) (which is zero) -- so it doesn't make sense to say "for all x".
 
Clearly i missed the point of the question

what are they asking for actually?
i imples that ii cannot h0old and vice versa?? Is that what I am aiming for here?
 
Let T: V->V be a linear transformation where V is finite dimensional. Show that exactly one of (i) an (ii) holds
i) T(v) = 0 for some v not zero in V
ii) T(x) = v has a solution x in V for every v in V


"Show that exactly one holds" means "one of these and only one" You must show that for any vector v either (i) is true or (ii) is true and also show that they can't both be true.

What do you know about T(0)? If (i) is true, if T(v)= 0 for non-zero v, then what is the solution to T(x)= 0?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Let T: V->V be a linear transformation where V is finite dimensional. Show that exactly one of (i) an (ii) holds
i) T(v) = 0 for some v not zero in V
ii) T(x) = v has a solution x in V for every v in V


"Show that exactly one holds" means "one of these and only one" You must show that for any vector v either (i) is true or (ii) is true and also show that they can't both be true.

What do you know about T(0)? If (i) is true, if T(v)= 0 for non-zero v, then what is the solution to T(x)= 0?
'
isnt T(0) = 0
suppose T(v) = 0, then if T(x) = 0, then x = v
 
stunner5000pt said:
'
isnt T(0) = 0
suppose T(v) = 0, then if T(x) = 0, then x = v

Did you notice the emphasis in the solution?

Yes, T(0)= 0. Don't you see a problem with that and "T(v)= 0 for some no-zero v"?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Did you notice the emphasis in the solution?

Yes, T(0)= 0. Don't you see a problem with that and "T(v)= 0 for some no-zero v"?

so
suppose T(v) = 0 for v not zero
then suppose T(x) = 0, for some x in V then x =v.
But T(0) = 0 , so x must be zero? But v is non zero. SO the second one cannot hold? Is it like that?
 
In general, T(x) = T(y) does not imply x = y.
 
Hurkyl said:
In general, T(x) = T(y) does not imply x = y.
right, T in this case is not specified to be one to one
so for T(x) = 0 ,x MUST be v because of the assertion of the first condition.
 
  • #10
so for T(x) = 0 ,x MUST be v because of the assertion of the first condition.
Why do you think (i) tells you x = v?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K