Undergrad How this defines a linear transformation

Click For Summary
In the discussion, the definition of a linear transformation F: U+W → Y is explored, where S and T are linear transformations from subspaces U and W, respectively, that agree on their intersection. The challenge arises when defining F as F = S + T, which leads to the issue of double counting in the intersection, resulting in F equating to 2S instead of S. Participants discuss the need for a proper formulation of F that respects the properties of linear transformations. The conversation also touches on concepts like direct sums and complements of subspaces as potential solutions. Ultimately, the focus is on finding a correct definition for the linear transformation F that aligns with the properties of S and T.
Granger
Messages
165
Reaction score
7
Admit that V is a linear space about \mathbb{R} and that U and W are subspaces of V. Suppose that S: U \rightarrow Y and T: W \rightarrow Y are two linear transformations that satisfy the property:

(\forall x \in U \cap W) S(x)=T(x)

Define a linear transformation F: U+W \rightarrow Y that matches with S for values in U and matches with T with values in W.

My thought is to choose the linear transformation F=S+T because it will be the union of both transformation, right? But we have the problem that when our objects are in the intersection of both space we will get to F = 2S instead of S
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
On this forum the tags using backslash and "tex" don't work for LaTex. Use a forward slash.

Granger said:
Admit that ##V## is a linear space about ##\mathbb{R}## and that U and W are subspaces of V. Suppose that ##S: U \rightarrow Y## and ##T: W \rightarrow Y## are two linear transformations that satisfy the property:
##(\forall x \in U \cap W)\ S(x)=T(x)##
Define a linear transformation ##F##: ## U+W \rightarrow Y## that matches with S for values in U and matches with T with values in W.

Are you asking whether it is possible to define such a linear transformaton ?

My thought is to choose the linear transformation ##F=S+T## because it will be the union of both transformation, right? But we have the problem that when our objects are in the intersection of both space we will get to F = 2S instead of S
 
Hello Stephen!

Thanks, I edited my question.

No, I know it's possible to define the linear transformation I'm asking what should be the linear transformation and how can I get there :)
 
Do you know about direct sums, and complements of subspaces?
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K