Dual spaces-Existence of linear functional

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of a non-zero linear functional on a finite-dimensional vector space V, given a linear transformation T that satisfies T(v) = cv for some vector v in V. Participants are exploring the implications of this relationship and the properties of linear functionals in the context of dual spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to define the linear functional f and are questioning how to extend its definition beyond the specific vector v. There is discussion about the implications of defining f(v) in various ways and the constraints of linearity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants raising questions about the definition of the functional f and its properties. Some have pointed out the challenges in maintaining linearity while trying to define f for multiple vectors. There is a recognition of the need to find a suitable definition that adheres to the requirements of linear transformations.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints imposed by the properties of linear functionals and the specific conditions of the problem, including the requirement that f must remain a linear transformation.

neomasterc
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let V be a finite dimensional vector field over F. Let T:V→V
Let c be a scalar and suppose there is v in V such that T(v)=cv, then show there exists a non-zero linear functional f on V such that Tt(f)=cf.
Tt denotes T transpose.

Homework Equations


Tt(f)=f°T. Ev(f)=f(v).
Let V*=HomF(V,F)
V*=(V*)*
E:V→V** i.e. E(v)=Ev
Theorem: E is an isomorphism iff V is finite dimensional


The Attempt at a Solution


Ev(Tt(f))=f°T(v)=cf(v).
But now I need to show there is f such that Tt(f)=cf, not just for specific v that satisfies T(v)=cv.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How would you define f?? Obviously you will want to have f(v)=v. How would you define it for other vectors?? Maybe set f(w)=0 for some other vectors??
 
f is just a linear transformation in V*=HomF(V,F), so you cannot have f(v)=v, f:V→F.
 
f(v)=1 I meant.
 
We cannot define f(kv)=1 and f(w)=0 for w≠v, since if a is a multiple of v and b is a multiple of v, a+b is a multiple of v, so 1=f(a+b)≠f(a)+f(b)=2. So f won't be a linear transformation.
 
neomasterc said:
We cannot define f(kv)=1 and f(w)=0 for w≠v, since if a is a multiple of v and b is a multiple of v, a+b is a multiple of v, so 1=f(a+b)≠f(a)+f(b)=2. So f won't be a linear transformation.

Indeed we can't. Can you solve that?? Don't put ALL the vectors equal to 0, but only some. Do you see it??
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K