Is the Proof for Rank(T) = Rank(L_A) Correct?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Buri
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the relationship between the rank of a linear transformation T and the rank of its matrix representation L_A. Participants explore the definitions and properties of linear transformations, matrix representations, and their implications on dimensions and ranges within the context of linear algebra.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof showing that the range of the transformation T corresponds to the range of the matrix representation L_A, leading to the conclusion that their ranks are equal.
  • Another participant asserts that by definition, the column space of the matrix representation A is the same as the range of the transformation T, suggesting that they must have the same dimension.
  • A concern is raised about the definition of column spaces not being established at this point in the text, emphasizing the need to prove the relationship without relying on that concept.
  • Further clarification is provided that if a vector c in V is represented in F^n, then the relationship between T and L_A can be shown through their representations, indicating that the ranges are equal and thus have the same dimension.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about connecting the ranks without invoking a previously established theorem regarding isomorphisms and dimensions of subspaces.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the isomorphism φ_γ maps bases of R(T) onto bases of F^m, implying that the dimensions are the same without additional work.
  • There is a reiteration that the earlier proof regarding isomorphisms is being utilized, and the conclusion about the dimensions follows from the established relationships.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the relationship between the ranks of T and L_A, but there is some contention regarding the necessity of certain definitions and the clarity of the proof. Multiple viewpoints on the sufficiency of the proof and the definitions involved remain present.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the absence of definitions for column spaces at this stage, which may limit the proof's clarity. There is also a reliance on previously established results that may not be universally accepted within the current discussion.

Buri
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
I'd like to have someone check whether my proof of the following is correct. First, a couple of definitions to make sure we're all on the same page:

L_A is the mapping L_A: F^n → F^m defined by L_A (x) = Ax (the matrix product of A and x) for each column vector x in F^n.

The standard representation of V with respect to β is the function φ_β: V → F^n defined by φ_β(x) = [x]_β (i.e. the vector of x relative to β).

A result I've proved already:

Let V and W be finite-dimensional vector spaces and T: V → W be an isomorphism. Let V0 be a subspace of V. Then T(V0) is a subspace of W and dim(V0) = dim(T(V0)).

Let V and W be a vector spaces of dimension n and m, respectively, and let T: V → W be a linear transformation. Define A = [T] (i.e. the matrix representation of T in the ordered bases β and γ). So we have the following relationship (please ignore the dotted lines):

V------T--------->W
|...... |
|......|
φ_β......φ_γ
|......|
F^n -------L_A---> F^m

So to the question finally:

Let T: V → W be a linear transformation from an n-dimensional vector space V to an m-dimensional vector space W. Let β and γ be ordered bases for V and W, respectively. Prove that rank(T) = rank(L_A), where A = [T].

*********
!PROOF!
*********

I'll show that φ_γ(R(T)) = R(L_A) (R here is talking about the range..). From which then the result I'd proved already I'll have dim(R(T)) = dim(φ_γ(R(T)) = dim(R(L_A)) (remember that φ_γ(R(T) and R(L_A) are both in F^m).

So let x be in φ_γ(R(T)).

This means for some T(y) in R(T) I have x = φ_γ(T(y)) which means x = [T(y)]_γ = [T][y]_β = Ay which is in R(L_A). Since its arbitrary I've shown that φ_γ(R(T))⊂ R(L_A).

Further, let z in R(L_A). Then z = Ax for some x in F^n. Therefore, z = [T][x]_β = [T(x)]_γ which is in φ_γ(R(T)). Therefore, R(L_A) ⊂ φ_γ(R(T)) and hence, R(L_A) = φ_γ(R(T)). So by the result I'd proved earlier dim(R(T)) = dim(φ_γ(R(T))) = dim(R(L_A)).

Was this correctly done? Or am I at least on the right track? I'd really appreciate the help. I'm taking a look at linear algebra on my own this summer, so any help is REALLY appreciated! Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By definition of [T], the column space of [T] = A is the range of T. Similarly, by definition of L_A, it's range is the column space of A. So range of T is the same space as range of L_A and they must have same dimension. That's it.
 
Last edited:
At this point in the text, the column space of a matrix hasn't been defined. So its meant to be done without it. I'm mainly concerned about if whether the above proof is correct or not and not really whether there are quicker ways of doing it.
 
OK, without column spaces - Obviously [A] is the matrix representation of L_A in bases F^m and F^n. If c is any vector in V and [c] is its representation in F^n, then [Tc] = [T][c] = [A][c] = (L_A)[c] . So you have Tc is in range of T if and only if (L_A)[c] is in range of L_A. So those two subspaces are equal and have same dimension.
 
Last edited:
marcin w said:
If c is any vector in V and [c] is its representation in F^n, then [Tc] = [T][c] = [A][c] = (L_A)[c] .

I believe that only shows that φ_γ(R(T)) = R(L_A) which is what I showed above.

It seems that I have no way to connect Rank(T) and Rank(L_A) unless I use the theorem:

Let V and W be finite-dimensional vector spaces and T: V → W be an isomorphism. Let V0 be a subspace of V. Then T(V0) is a subspace of W and dim(V0) = dim(T(V0)).

By applying the theorem to V0 = R(T) and using the isomorphism φ_γ, I have that dim(φ_γ(R(T))) = dim(R(T)) and hence, by what we have both shown, also equal to dim(R(L_A)).

You see what I mean?
 
Last edited:
Can anyone else verify?
 
An isomorphism is a very strong relationship between structures and in essence states that the two structures are identical in their behavior under operations, that sets of images have the same characteristics, etc. You acknowledge that φ_γ mapping is an isomorphism, so it maps bases of R(T) onto bases of F^m, hence same dimension. No further work is required.
 
marcin w said:
You acknowledge that φ_γ mapping is an isomorphism, so it maps bases of R(T) onto bases of F^m, hence same dimension.

So you're technically using the result I had proved earlier. This only gives me dim(R(T)) = dim(φ_γ(R(T)) and from "...[Tc] = [T][c] = [A][c] = (L_A)[c]" I get φ_γ(R(T)) = R(L_A) and I'm done.

Anyways, thanks for taking a look at this. It was really clustered so I thought no-one was going to take a look. So thanks a lot!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K