Proving h:V*->K^n is Bijective

  • Thread starter boombaby
  • Start date
In summary, h is a linear transformation from V* to K^n that maps a linear function f to a vector with its values on a basis of V. It is known that h(xf + yg) = xh(f) + yh(g) for x, y in K and f, g in V*. It is also known that h is bijective, meaning that it is both injective and surjective. This is because any linear map on V is determined by its values on a basis, and vice versa. To prove surjectivity, one can use an isomorphism g from V to K^n and a linear function f that maps the basis elements of V to the components of a given vector in K^n. This
  • #1
boombaby
130
0
Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over the field K, V* be the dual space, the set of all linear functions on V. Now define a h:V*->K^n by h(f)=(f(e_1),f(e_2),...f(e_n)), where e_i is the basis of V. It is known that h(xf+yg)=xh(f)+yh(g), where x,y is in K and f,g in V*. It is told that h is bijective. I understand h is injective, but do not understand why it is surjective? it might be quite simple, all the books just says it is OBVIOUS, but I just don't get it...
More precisely, given x=(x_1, x_2,...,x_n) in K^n, why there is a f in V* such that h(f)=x, or equivalently, f(e_i)=x_i ?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
boombaby said:
why there is a f in V* such that ... f(e_i)=x_i ?
Thanks!
Aren't expressions exactly like that how you normally go about specifying a linear transformation?
 
  • #3
yea, thanks. I think get it now...in case I made something wrong, check it please, thanks
since I'm not having much knowledge on linear transformation. This is how I'm thinking:
there's a isomorphism g:V->K^n such that g(e_1)=(1,0,...,0), g(e_2)=(0,1,0...0)...g(e_n)=(0,0,...,1).
given (a_1,a_2,...,a_n) in K^n, there's a linear function f:K^n->K such that f(g(e_1))=a_1,...f(g(e_n))=a_n and f has the form f((x_1,x_2,...,x_n))=a_1*x_1+...a_n*x_n. This is done by solving a system of linear equations.
f(g(v)):V->K is the linear function I need. (linearity is easy to check)

Is this the right way to prove it? Is it possible to have a more explicit form of f?
Thanks
 
Last edited:
  • #4
That's explicit enough, isn't it? The reason textbooks don't elaborate on why h is bijection is because it really is obvious! Any linear map defined on V is completely determined by its action on a basis; and vice versa, once you define the values of a function on the basis of V, you can extend it (uniquely) to a linear map.
 
  • #5
thanks. it's more clear now
 

1. What does it mean for a function to be bijective?

A bijective function is a one-to-one and onto function, meaning that every element in the function's domain is mapped to a unique element in the function's range, and every element in the function's range has a corresponding element in the function's domain.

2. How do you prove that h:V*->K^n is bijective?

To prove that a function is bijective, you must show that it is both injective (one-to-one) and surjective (onto). This can be done by proving that for every element in the function's range, there exists a unique element in the function's domain that maps to it, and that no two elements in the function's domain map to the same element in the function's range.

3. What is the significance of proving that h:V*->K^n is bijective?

Proving that a function is bijective is important because it guarantees that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements in the function's domain and the elements in its range. This allows for the function to be easily reversed, and ensures that no information is lost in the mapping process.

4. Are there any specific techniques or strategies for proving a function is bijective?

Yes, there are a few common techniques used to prove a function is bijective. These include direct proof, proof by contradiction, and proof by contrapositive. It is also helpful to use specific examples and counterexamples to support your proof.

5. Can a function be bijective if it is not defined for all values in its domain?

No, in order for a function to be bijective, it must be defined for all values in its domain. This ensures that every element in the function's range has a corresponding element in its domain, and that there are no gaps or overlaps in the mapping. If a function is not defined for all values in its domain, it cannot be proven to be bijective.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
504
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
549
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
3K
Back
Top