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

In summary, the theorem states that for a linear map F with a kernel of {O}, if v1, ... ,vn are linearly independent elements of V, then F(v1), ... ,F(vn) are also linearly independent elements of W. In the proof, Serge Lang uses linearity and injectivity to show that the constants in C1F(v1) + C2F(v2) + ... + CnF(vn) must be 0. However, it is possible to prove this using only linearity.
  • #1
jamalkoiyess
217
21
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
  • #2
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 jamalkoiyess

1. What does the theorem "Ker{F}=0" mean?

The theorem "Ker{F}=0" refers to the kernel of a linear transformation F being equal to 0. In other words, the only vector that maps to the zero vector under F is the zero vector itself.

2. Why is it important for "Ker{F}=0" to hold in a theorem?

Having "Ker{F}=0" in a theorem is important because it ensures that the linear transformation F is one-to-one, meaning that each input has a unique output. This allows for simpler and more efficient calculations and proofs.

3. How do I determine if "Ker{F}=0" is true in a given theorem?

To determine if "Ker{F}=0" holds in a theorem, you can use the definition of a kernel and check if the only vector that maps to the zero vector under F is the zero vector itself. This can also be verified by checking if the null space of the matrix representing F is only the zero vector.

4. Can a theorem still be valid if "Ker{F}=0" is not satisfied?

Yes, a theorem can still be valid even if "Ker{F}=0" is not satisfied. However, it may require additional conditions or assumptions in order to hold. In some cases, the theorem may also need to be reformulated to account for a non-zero kernel.

5. What are the implications of "Ker{F}=0" being false in a theorem?

If "Ker{F}=0" is false in a theorem, it means that the linear transformation F is not one-to-one. This can lead to more complex or lengthy calculations and proofs, and may require additional assumptions or conditions to make the theorem valid.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
592
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
457
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
620
Back
Top