1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Isomorphism and linear independence

  1. Oct 28, 2007 #1
    I think I am missing a key info below. I have listed the problem statement, how I am approaching and why I think I am missing something.

    Please advise why I am wrong.



    Problem statement:
    Let T: U->V be an isomorphism. Let U1, U2,...,Un be linearly independent. Show that T(U1), T(U2),...,T(Un) is linearly independent in V.

    Problem solution
    1- In U, this is true: (lambda[1])(U[1]) + ... (lambda[n])(U[n]) = 0 as this is linearly independent and all lambdas are 0 (for linear independence)

    2- Since it is an isomorphism, every vector in U uniquely maps to V.

    3- Therefore V is linearly independent also.

    4- v1 = (alpha[1])T(U[1])
    vn = (alpha[n])T(U[n])
    Since v is lineraly independent:
    0 = alpha[1]T(U[1]) + alpha[2]T(U2)+....+alpha[n]T(U[n])

    My question

    a- Is step 3 a valid assumption
    b- By saying equation in step 4, can I safely assume that T(u1),...,T(un) are linearly independent?


  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 28, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Actually, linear independence of v1, v2, ..., vn is equivalent to saying that if
    a1 v1 + a2 v2 + ... + an vn = 0
    then all ai must be zero. So in step 4 you actually assumed what you are proving.

    I'd go about it like this: suppose that
    b1 T(u1) + b2 T(u2) + ... + bn T(un) = 0
    for some coefficients b1, ..., bn. You want to prove that these numbers are all zero. Now use what you know about a isomorphism. Especially note that it is linear. You will want to go back to a linear combination with just u1, ..., un, because you know that they are independent.
  4. Oct 28, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Technically, what you have said is that if all the lambdas are 0, then that linear combination is 0- that's true of any set of vectors, independent or not. What you need to use is the other way: if, given that the linear combination is 0, then all lambdas must be 0.

    Well, no, step 3 is NOT a "valid assumption"- it is what you are trying to prove! It might help to use a slightly different characterization of independence: it's not difficult to prove that a set of vectors is independent if and only if no one of them can be written as a linear combination of the others.

    Suppose T(u1), T(u2), ... T(un) were NOT linearly independent Then one of them, say T(ui) is equal to a1T(u1)+ ... an T(un)= T(a1u1+ ... anun) where ui does NOT appear on the right hand sides. Then use the fact that T is one-to-one.

    Another characterization of "linearly independent" is that the 0 vector can be written in only one way: if a1u1+ ... anun= 0, then a1= ...= an= 0. You could also use that.
  5. Oct 28, 2007 #4
    So I assume you are saying that

    - Assume there exists T(a[1]u[1])+...+T(a[n]u[n])) = 0

    - Then because this is an isomorphic transformation and this transformation is linear, I get
    T(a1u1+....anUn) = 0 or
    (a1u1+...+anUn) = 0

    - Now since U's is linerarly independent, it implies that all a's are 0 for all n.

    - Therefore T(u) is linearly independent for all n.
  6. Oct 28, 2007 #5
    No, you seem to be having a hard time, so this is how to do it. Make sure you can do this on your own!

    Assume a_1T(u_1) + ... + a_nT(u_n) = 0 for some scalars a_1, ..., a_n, then by linearity of T we have,
    T(a_1u_1 + ... +a_nu_n) = 0 = T(0). Now apply T^-1 to both sides, so
    a_1u_1 + ... + a_nu_n = 0, but u_1,..., u_n are independent, so
    a_1 = ... = a_n = 0, so we are done.

    So we started with a_1T(u_1) + ... + a_nT(u_n) = 0, and showed all the a_i are zero, so by definition this means T(u_1), ..., T(u_n) are linearly independent.
  7. Oct 28, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No, ircdan, asif zaidi's is perfectly valid (as is your of course). He did not use T-1 but he used the equivalent statement that if T(v)= 0, then v= 0. Since T is one-to-one and T(0)= 0, if T(v)= 0 we must have v= 0. Then he can say "Now since U's is linerarly independent, it implies that all a's are 0 for all n." (Well, "U's are" would be better English!:wink:)
  8. Oct 28, 2007 #7
    Ahh ok I didn't bother to read the proof since the first line reads "Assume T(a[1]u[1])+...+T(a[n]u[n])) = 0 " and that's already incorrect because the a_i's are on the inside, which is wrong imho. If you are going to use the definition to prove something, you should use it correctly right? Anyways I can see what he/she meant by that, it's totally obvious, but the original poster was having a very hard time and I didn't want them to think that's how they should start their proofs.

    Heh I just realized Asif *is* the original poster.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Isomorphism and linear independence
  1. Linear Independence (Replies: 1)

  2. Linear independence (Replies: 2)

  3. Linear independence (Replies: 6)

  4. Linear independance (Replies: 3)

  5. Linear independence (Replies: 3)