Does this theorem need that Ker{F}=0?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around Theorem 3.1 from Serge Lang's linear algebra, which states that if a linear map F: V --> W has a kernel of {O}, then linearly independent vectors v1, ..., vn in V map to linearly independent vectors F(v1), ..., F(vn) in W. The proof utilizes both linearity and injectivity, but the author questions the necessity of injectivity, suggesting that linearity alone suffices to demonstrate the independence of the mapped vectors. The author provides an alternative argument showing that if F(v1) = 0, then the vectors become dependent, challenging the role of injectivity in the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear maps and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concepts of linear independence and dependence
  • Knowledge of injective functions in linear algebra
  • Basic proficiency in Serge Lang's linear algebra text
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of injectivity in linear transformations
  • Explore alternative proofs of linear independence in linear maps
  • Review the definitions and properties of kernels in linear algebra
  • Examine examples of linear maps that are not injective
USEFUL FOR

Students of linear algebra, educators teaching linear transformations, and mathematicians interested in the foundational aspects of linear mappings and their properties.

jamalkoiyess
Messages
217
Reaction score
22
I have encountered this theorem in Serge Lang's linear algebra:
Theorem 3.1. Let F: V --> W be a linear map whose kernel is {O}, then If v1 , ... ,vn are linearly independent elements of V, then F(v1), ... ,F(vn) are linearly independent elements of W.

In the proof he starts with C1F(v1) + C2F(v2) + ... + CnF(vn) and then uses linearity and injectivity to prove that the constants are 0.

I can't see where injectivity is essential, he could have proved it with linearity alone.
He arrives at a point where we have :

F(C1V1 + ... + CnVn) = 0

He uses injectivity here to prove that C1V1 + ... + CnVn = 0 and since v1 ... vn linearly independent, the constants are 0. But that can be also solved by the fact that F is linear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Say ##F(v_1)=0##, then ##1*F(v_1)+0*F(v_2)+\cdots+0*F(v_n)=0##, they are dependent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jamalkoiyess

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K