Finding a linear transformation.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding or proving the non-existence of a linear transformation T: R3 -> R1[x] with a specified kernel. The kernel is defined as the span of two vectors in R3, and participants explore the implications of this setup in the context of linear transformations and dimensional analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the nature of the kernel and its implications for the linear transformation, questioning how the kernel relates to the dimensionality of the image. There are attempts to express the transformation in terms of a matrix and to derive relationships between the coefficients involved.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing various interpretations and approaches to the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the structure of the transformation and the relationships between the coefficients, but there is no explicit consensus on the final form of the transformation or its existence.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of the problem, including the dimensionality of the kernel and image, and the requirement to express the transformation in a specific polynomial form. There are also discussions about the implications of choosing arbitrary constants in the transformation.

peripatein
Messages
868
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Homework Statement


How may I find (or prove that there isn't) a linear transformation which satisfies T: R3->R1[x], ker T = Sp{(1,0,1), (2,-1,1)}?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I am not sure how to approach this. I understand that kerT is the group of all vectors (x,y,z) in R3 so that T(x,y,z) = 0 = Sp{(1,0,1), (2,-1,1)}. So x = alpha, y = -beta, z = alpha + beta? Hence, x,y,z=0? Hence, T has to be one-to-one? Since dim(R1[x]) is 2, does that mean that there is no such linear transformation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand what you try to do with your alpha and beta.
Every vector which can be written in that way is part of ker T - and now? What about vectors which cannot be written like that?

peripatein said:
Since dim(R1[x]) is 2, does that mean that there is no such linear transformation?
You can use a dimensional analysis to prove that there is no surjective linear transformation (with the given ker T), but that is not relevant here.
 
Won't dimensional analysis show that dimIm(T) must be equal to 1? How does that help me disprove that no such linear transformation exists?
 
Why do you think you can disprove it at all?

dim Im(T)=1, I agree
 
I don't know, wrong inference from your previous post I presume. In any case, how shall I proceed?
 
[itex]R_1[x][/itex] is the set of all polynomials of the form ax+ b for real numbers a and b (unless I am misunderstanding- I would call that R[x] without the "1"). We can represent that by the column vector [itex]\begin{bmatrix}a \\ b \end{bmatrix}[/itex] and so we can represent a linear transformation from [itex]R^3[/itex] to [itex]R_1[x][/itex] by a 3 by 2 matrix:
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}a & b & c \\ d & e & f \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \\ z \end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}p \\ q\end{bmatrix}[/tex]

Saying that the kernel is spanned by (1, 0, 1) and (2, -1, 1) means that
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}a & b & c \\ d & e & f \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}a+ c \\ d+ e\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}[/tex]
and
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}a & b & c \\ d & e & f \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}2 \\ -1\\ 1\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}2a- b+ c \\ 2d- e+ f\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}[/tex]

So we must have a+ c= 0, d+ e= 0, 2a- b+ c= 0, and 2d- e+ f= 0. That gives four equations with which we can solve for four of a, b, c, d, e, and f in terms of the other two.
 
Would you care to explain the logic behind such approach? For instance, why did you choose a matrix whose first two elements in the first row are the elements of the column vector [a,b]?
 
a to f are just some constants (with arbitrary names), as this 2x3-matrix represents an arbitrary linear transformation from R^3 to R^2 (or R[x] in this special case).
 
Right, but it is for a reason that a and b appear in both cases, namely first two elements in the first row of the matrix AND the elements of the column vector [a,b]. I am asking why is that.
Moreover, I have a general question - are all different bases linearly dependent?
 
  • #10
No, they are not related. As you can see, HallsofIvy replaced the names by p and q in the first equation to avoid collisions.
 
  • #11
Okay. The result I obtained was a=b=-c and d=-e=-f/3.
How do I derive my answer from these values?
 
  • #12
As you have no additional restrictions, you can choose two values for those parts to find a linear transformation.
a=b=-c=5, d=e=-f/3=7 for example.
 
  • #13
Hence, how should the final answer be presented? Shouldn't it be presented in the form of a polynomial ax+b?
 
  • #14
The final answer should give some unique way to map all vectors (g,h,i) to vectors px+q.
 
  • #15
In that case, I don't think I understand. I thought I was to provide a general term for a transformation answering the criteria as presented in the question. Would you clarify, please?
 
  • #16
You have to give a single linear transformation - this is a specific way to map every vector of R^3 to a polynomial: Like an equation T(g,h,i)=... which can be used for all values of g,h,i and gives a result which depends on g,h,i.
 
  • #17
Let me see if I got it correctly. Supposing I take the values for a,b,c,d,e and f, and substitute them into the original matrix as suggested by HallsofIvy, I get a single column vector whose elements are 5x+5y-5z and 7x+7y-21z. To what end does that serve me?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
3K