Is Matching Dimension Enough for Linear Transformation Invertibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bipolarity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transformations
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
For a linear transformation to be invertible, is it a requirement that the domain and codomain be the same vector space, or merely that they have the same dimension? My intuition tells me they merely need the same dimension but someone can correct me please?

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to be a bit careful - the range of the linear transformation needs to have the same dimension, not just the codomain. But there is no requirement they be exactly the same vector space (in fact two vector spaces which are the same dimension are always isomorphic, so in a sense they are the same vector space as far as any linear algebra operations go)
 
your intuition is correct. two vector spaces are isomorphic precisely when they have the same dimension.
 
For example, the function f(a, b)= a+ bx is an invertible linear transformation for R2, the vector space of ordered pairs of real numbers, to P2, the vector space of linear polynomials, both of which have dimension 2.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top