MHB Kernel of Linear Map: Show $\ker \phi$ Equation

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on demonstrating the equation for the kernel of a linear map $\phi: V \rightarrow W$. It establishes that if $v \in V$ can be expressed as a linear combination of the basis $(b_1, \ldots, b_n)$, then $v$ is in the kernel of $\phi$ if and only if the corresponding coefficients $(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n)$ satisfy a specific linear condition. The participants clarify that the condition for $v$ being in the kernel is equivalent to the coefficients being in the set defined by $\mathbf{L}$. Ultimately, they confirm that the representation of $v$ in terms of the basis and the condition on the coefficients correctly defines the kernel of the linear map. The conversation concludes with agreement on the correctness of the derivation.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $1\leq n,m\in \mathbb{N}$, $V:=\mathbb{R}^n$ and $(b_1, \ldots , b_n)$ a basis of $V$. Let $W:=\mathbb{R}^m$ and let $\phi:V\rightarrow W$ be a linear map.
Show that $$\ker \phi =\left \{\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\mid \begin{pmatrix}\lambda_1\\ \vdots \\ \lambda_n\end{pmatrix}\in \textbf{L}(\phi (b_1), \ldots , \phi (b_n))\right \}$$

I have done the following:

Let $v\in V$. Since $(b_1, \ldots , b_n)$ is a basis of $V$, we have that $\displaystyle{v=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i}$.

Then we have that $$v\in \ker \phi \iff \phi (v)=0_W \iff \phi \left (\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\right )=0_W \iff \sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\phi (b_i)=0_W$$

Is this correct so far? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Is this correct so far?

Hey mathmari!

Yep. Correct. (Nod)

Btw, what is $\mathbf L$? (Wondering)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Yep. Correct. (Nod)

Btw, what is $\mathbf L$? (Wondering)

The definition is: $$\mathbf L=\left \{(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_k)^T\in \mathbb{R}^k\mid \sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_iv_i=0\right \}$$

So we get $$v\in \ker \phi \iff \phi (v)=0_W \iff \phi \left (\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\right )=0_W \iff \sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\phi (b_i)=0_W\iff (\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T\in \mathbf L$$

But to get the desired result it has to be $v=(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T$, or not? So did we have to take at the beginning this assumption? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
The definition is: $$\mathbf L=\left \{(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_k)^T\in \mathbb{R}^k\mid \sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_iv_i=0\right \}$$

So we get $$v\in \ker \phi \iff \phi (v)=0_W \iff \phi \left (\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\right )=0_W \iff \sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\phi (b_i)=0_W\iff (\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T\in \mathbf L$$

Yep. (Nod)

mathmari said:
But to get the desired result it has to be $v=(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T$, or not? So did we have to take at the beginning this assumption?

No. $(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T$ is not an element of $V$, is it? And it shouldn't be. (Shake)
It's not an element of the kernel either.
Don't we already have the desired result? (Wondering)
What do you think is missing?
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Yep. (Nod)
No. $(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T$ is not an element of $V$, is it? And it shouldn't be. (Shake)
It's not an element of the kernel either.
Don't we already have the desired result? (Wondering)
What do you think is missing?

Ohh now I think I got it. I thought we have to show that $v\in \ker \phi \iff v\in L$, but $(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T\in \mathbf L$ is just the condition that $v$ is in $\left \{\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\mid \begin{pmatrix}\lambda_1\\ \vdots \\ \lambda_n\end{pmatrix}\in \textbf{L}(\phi (b_1), \ldots , \phi (b_n))\right \}$, right? (Wondering)

So from $$v\in \ker \phi \iff \phi (v)=0_W \iff \phi \left (\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\right )=0_W \iff \sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\phi (b_i)=0_W\iff (\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T\in \mathbf L$$ we have that $v=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i$ is in the kernel iff $(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T\in \mathbf L$ which means that $v=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i$ is contained in $\left \{\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\mid \begin{pmatrix}\lambda_1\\ \vdots \\ \lambda_n\end{pmatrix}\in \textbf{L}(\phi (b_1), \ldots , \phi (b_n))\right \}$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Ohh now I think I got it. I thought we have to show that $v\in \ker \phi \iff v\in L$, but $(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T\in \mathbf L$ is just the condition that $v$ is in $\left \{\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\mid \begin{pmatrix}\lambda_1\\ \vdots \\ \lambda_n\end{pmatrix}\in \textbf{L}(\phi (b_1), \ldots , \phi (b_n))\right \}$, right?

So from $$v\in \ker \phi \iff \phi (v)=0_W \iff \phi \left (\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\right )=0_W \iff \sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\phi (b_i)=0_W\iff (\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T\in \mathbf L$$ we have that $v=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i$ is in the kernel iff $(\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n)^T\in \mathbf L$ which means that $v=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i$ is contained in $\left \{\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ib_i\mid \begin{pmatrix}\lambda_1\\ \vdots \\ \lambda_n\end{pmatrix}\in \textbf{L}(\phi (b_1), \ldots , \phi (b_n))\right \}$.

Is this correct?

Yep. All correct. (Nod)
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K