Inverse linear transformation (think I got it, but don't have answer to compare)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the linear transformation T defined from P1 to P1, specifically examining whether T has an inverse and how to determine its invertibility.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the injectivity and surjectivity of the transformation T as criteria for invertibility. There are questions about the appropriate methods to demonstrate that T is one-to-one, including the use of definitions or null space considerations.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on how to approach the proof of T's invertibility, suggesting methods to show injectivity. There is ongoing clarification regarding the definition of T and its range, with acknowledgment of a typo that led to confusion.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on ensuring that the transformation is correctly defined and that the implications of its range are understood. The original poster is encouraged to refer to specific literature for further insights on linear map invertibility.

phyzmatix
Messages
313
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Define [tex]T:P_1 \rightarrow P_1[/tex] by T(a+bx)=(a-b)+ax. Check as to whether T has an inverse or not and if it has, find [tex]T^{-1}[/tex]

Homework Equations



[tex]T^{-1}(T(v))=v[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



The range of T is P1, so T is one-to-one. The inverse of T is therefore

[tex]T^{-1}((a-b)+ax)=(a+bx)[/tex]

Is my reasoning sound?

Thanks for the help!
phyz
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, T is a linear transformation from P1 to P1, so if it is injective or surjective it is invertible. Should you show T is one-to-one using the definition or by showing null(T)={0}?

Your T-1 needs to be actually defined. As defined, T's range is P2. So let c+dx+ex2 be in P2. Define T-1:P2→P1 by T-1(c+dx+ex2)=d+(d-c)x. Now check that T-1 is actually the inverse of T by showing T-1(T(a+bx))=a+bx.
 
n!kofeyn said:
Yes, T is a linear transformation from P1 to P1, so if it is injective or surjective it is invertible. Should you show T is one-to-one using the definition or by showing null(T)={0}?

Your T-1 needs to be actually defined. As defined, T's range is P2. So let c+dx+ex2 be in P2. Define T-1:P2→P1 by T-1(c+dx+ex2)=d+(d-c)x. Now check that T-1 is actually the inverse of T by showing T-1(T(a+bx))=a+bx.

Hi there...sorry, but I made a typo :redface:

Should be [tex]T:P_1 \rightarrow P_1[/tex] not [tex]T:P_1 \rightarrow P_2[/tex]. Fixed it now though. They don't say how you should determine whether T has an inverse or not.
 
Oh okay, no problem. That makes more sense, as that confused me a little bit. Then just remove the ex2 from everywhere it appears above.

Read http://books.google.com/books?id=BNsOE3Gp_hEC&lpg=PP1&dq=sheldon axler linear algebra&pg=PA53" for invertibility of linear maps. Look at Theorem 3.21. To show T is invertible, all you need to do is show that it is injective or onto since it is a linear map from P1 to P1. I would recommend showing that if T(a+bx)=T(c+dx), then a+bx=c+dx to show it is one-to-one. Then just define the inverse of T as above, and you're done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for that! Have a great weekend! :smile:
 
Haha. No problem, and the same to you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K