Can a Projection Be an Isomorphism If It Maps to a Proper Subset?

Click For Summary
In the discussion, it is established that a projection T from a vector space V onto a proper subset W cannot be an isomorphism due to the difference in their dimensions. Since W is a proper subset of V, it inherently has a smaller dimension, making T not one-to-one and thus not bijective. The projection is surjective only if it maps every vector in V to W, which is impossible if W lacks elements from V. The conversation also touches on the rank-nullity theorem, reinforcing that the existence of a vector in V not included in W confirms T's lack of surjectivity. Overall, the conclusion is that a projection onto a proper subset cannot be an isomorphism.
Myr73
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Pre-knowledge

If V and W are finite-dimensional vector spaces, and dim(V) does not equal dim(W) then there is no bijective linear transformation from V to W.

An isomorphism between V and W is a bijective linear transformation from V to W. That is, it is both an onto transformation and a one to one.1- Question
Let W be a proper subset of an vector space V, and let T be the projections onto W. Prove that T is not an isomorphism.

2- Answer

Since T is a projection onto W then, T(v)=w, therefore dim(V) > dim(W)

However since W is a proper subset of the vector space V, W is missing an element of V and therefore dim (w) is smaller then dim (V) and is not equal. Therefore it is not a one to one, and so is not an isomorphism.

This is my answer, however I am unsure if that is correct. It makes sense in my mind that a subset of a vector space is smaller then the vector space itself in dimension, however I am uncertain. Can you help me please?

Thank you,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,
only a few suggestions, in general a projection is from a vector space ##V## in a subspace (subset that is a vector space) ##W##, so as you said we have that ## dim(W) \leq dim(V) ##, in the ##=## case your projection is the identity and is bijective but if ## dim(W) < dim(V) ## the two dimensions are different so is not a bijection...
The second question is a conseguence of the first, in general projections are surjective and linerar operators so you can define ##T:V\rightarrow W## specifing where you send the basis of ##V## in ##W##, for example ##\{(x,y,0):x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\}## is a subspace of dimension ##2## of ##\mathbb{R}^{3}## you can project from ##\mathbb{R}^{3}## sending ##e_{1}=(1,0,0)\mapsto (1,0,0),e_{2}=(0,1,0)\mapsto (0,1,0)\mapsto (0,1,0),e_{3}=(0,0,1)\mapsto (0,0,0)##.

I hope to clarify something but in general your answer was correct,
by
Simone
 
  • Like
Likes Myr73
Ssnow said:
Hi,
only a few suggestions, in general a projection is from a vector space ##V## in a subspace (subset that is a vector space) ##W##, so as you said we have that ## dim(W) \leq dim(V) ##, in the ##=## case your projection is the identity and is bijective <Snip>

Sure, for one, an n-dim space does not have non-trivial n-dimensional subspaces.
 
  • Like
Likes Ssnow
Myr73 said:
<Snip>

However since W is a proper subset of the vector space V, W is missing an element of V and therefore dim (w) is smaller then dim (V) and is not equal. Therefore it is not a one to one, and so is not an isomorphism.

This is my answer, however I am unsure if that is correct. It makes sense in my mind that a subset of a vector space is smaller then the vector space itself in dimension, however I am uncertain. Can you help me please?

Thank you,

Maybe Rank-nullity will work: Given two bases with n vectors , the nullity will be 0 , so the dimension of the image is the entire space.
 
Since you are given that W is a proper subset of V, it follows that there is some vector in V that is NOT in W and therefore T is not surjective.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Since you are given that W is a proper subset of V, it follows that there is some vector in V that is NOT in W and therefore T is not surjective.

This is what I had assumed, I just waanted to verify that this is correct. Thanks all
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K