Isomorphism: matrix determinant

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining if a specific map involving matrix determinants constitutes an isomorphism between two algebraic structures: < M2(R), usual multiplication > and < R, usual multiplication >. The original poster attempts to analyze the properties of the determinant function in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the requirements for the map to be an isomorphism, including being one-to-one, onto, and preserving operations. There is a focus on the challenge of demonstrating that the determinant function preserves the necessary operations.

Discussion Status

Some participants express uncertainty about the validity of the isomorphism claim, with one noting that the problem states it should be an isomorphism, while others question this assertion. There is a recognition of the need to clarify the conditions under which the determinant function operates.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion regarding the problem's wording, specifically whether it asserts that the map is an isomorphism or simply asks for verification of that claim.

kala
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Determine whether the given map \varphi is an isomorphism of the first binary structure with the second.
< M2(R ), usual multiplication > with <R, usual multiplication> where \varphi(A) is the determinant of matrix A.

The determinant of the matrix is ad-bc, so \varphi(A)=ad-bc.
For this to be an isomorphism, I have to show that the function is one to one, onto and preserves the operations.
I'm having trouble getting this to work. Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kala said:
I'm having trouble getting this to work.
Maybe it can't...
 
According to the book it is suppose to be an isomorphism, the question says it is. I can get it to be one to one and onto, but i am having trouble with it preserving the operations.
 
You just said that you must prove the function is "one to one". That is that two different matrices, such as
\begin{bmatrix}2 &amp; 1 \\ 1 &amp; 1\end{bmatrix}
and
\begin{bmatrix}3 &amp; 2\\ 1 &amp; 1\end{bmatrix}
must not have the same determinant. Is that true?

I think you should to reread that problem.
 
kala said:
the question says it is.
No it doesn't. The question is asking you whether or not it is.
 
Oh duh... That was stupid... It doesn't have to be. Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K