A How Does the Non-Equality of Kernels Imply Their Sum Equals the Vector Space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Portuga
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kernel
Portuga
Messages
56
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
Let ##F## and ##G## be two non-zero linear functionals over a vector space ##V## of dimension ##n##. Assuming ##ker (F ) \neq \ker (G)##, determine the dimensions of the following subspaces: ##\ker (F )##, ##\ker (G)##, ##\ker (F ) + \ker (G)##, and ##\ker (F ) \cap \ker (G)##.
This is actually a solved exercise from a Brazilian book on Linear Algebra. The author presented the following solution:

The kernel and image theorem tells us that dimension ##\dim V=n=\dim\ker\left(F\right)+\dim \text{im}\left(F\right)=\dim\ker\left(G\right)+\dim\text{im}\left(G\right)##. As ##\text{im}\left(F\right)\subset R##, ##\dim\mathbb{R}=1## and ##F\neq0##, then ##\dim\text{im}\left(F\right)=1##. Similarly ##\dim\text{im}\left(G\right)=1##. Therefore, ##\dim\ker\left(F\right)=\dim\ker\left(G\right)=n-1##. On the other hand, the dimension theorem of the sum assures us that

$$
\dim\left(\ker\left(F\right)+\ker\left(G\right)\right)+\dim\left(\ker\left(F\right)\cap\ker\left(G\right)\right)=\dim\ker\left(F\right)+\dim\ker\left(G\right)=2n-2.
$$

In general, ##\ker\left(G\right)\subset\ker\left(F\right)+\ker\left(G\right)## and due to the hypothesis ##\ker\left(F\right)\neq\ker\left(G\right)##, we will have ##\ker\left(F\right)\begin{array}{c}

\subset \\ \neq \end{array}\ker\left(F\right)+\ker\left(G\right)##; then necessarily ##\ker\left(F\right)+\ker\left(G\right)=V##. So ##\dim\left(\ker\left(F\right)+\ker\left(G\right)\right)=n## and hence

$$
\dim\left(\ker\left(F\right)\cap\ker\left(G\right)\right)=\left(2n-2\right)=n-2.
$$

I am ok with almost everything he presented, but couldn't understand why

the hypothesis ##\ker\left(F\right)\neq\ker\left(G\right)## implies that ##\ker\left(F\right)+\ker\left(G\right)=V.##

Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you understand why ##ker(F)\subsetneq ker(F)+ker(G)##?

Since the left hand side has dimension n-1, the right hand side must have dimension n or higher.
 
Office_Shredder said:
Do you understand why ##ker(F)\subsetneq ker(F)+ker(G)##?

Since the left hand side has dimension n-1, the right hand side must have dimension n or higher.
Oh my god! It was so simple!
Thank you very much!
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
810