Linear algebra: transformations

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around linear transformations in the context of linear algebra, specifically focusing on the composition of two linear transformations L1 and L2. The original poster seeks to demonstrate that the composition L = L2 * L1 is also a linear transformation mapping from U to W.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the necessity of proving that L1 and L2 are linear transformations before concluding that L is linear. Questions arise regarding the mapping specifics of L2, and whether to break down the proof into parts to show the mappings into V and W.

Discussion Status

There is an active exploration of the properties of linear transformations, with some participants confirming the approach of demonstrating the linearity of L through its components. Guidance has been provided regarding the relationships between the transformations and their mappings.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the definitions and properties of linear transformations, with some uncertainty about the structure of the proof and the roles of the transformations involved.

seang
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'll be online until I get this one completely figured out, so baby steps are for the win here.

Let L1:U->V and L2:U->W be linear transformations, and let L = L2 * L1 be the mapping defined by:

L(u) = L2(L1(u))

for each u which lies in U. Show that L is a linear transformation mapping U into W.
So basically, should I first show that L1(u) is a valid linear transform?, and then show that L2, is, too?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hm, I believe it's enough to assume L1 and L2 are linear transformations, and then proove that L is one, too.
 
Is L2 from U to W or from V to W?
 
V to W! thank you for that!
What about this? (in progress (latex noobie))

[tex]L(u) = L_2 (L_1 (u) )}[/tex]

[tex]L(u_1 + u_2) = L_2 (L_1 (u_1 + u_2) )}[/tex]

[tex]L(\alpha u_1 + \beta u_2) = L_2 (L_1 (\alpha u_1 + \beta u_2) )}[/tex]

[tex]L(\alpha u_1 + \beta u_2) = L_2 (\alpha L_1(u_1) + \beta L_1 (u_2) )}[/tex]

[tex]L(\alpha u_1 + \beta u_2) = \alpha L_2 (L_1(u_1)) + \beta L_2 (L_1(u_2))[/tex]

[tex]\alpha L(u_1)+ \beta L(u_2) = \alpha L_2 (L_1(u_1)) + \beta L_2 (L_1(u_2))[/tex]
Is this on the right track? If so, should I break it up into two pieces, and show that L1(u) is surely a mapping into V, and then show that L2(v) is surely a mapping into W?

Or am I way off
 
Last edited:
That's exactly right. Now all you have to do is note that
[tex]L_2(L_1(u_1))= L(u_1)[/tex]
and
[tex]L_2(L_1(u_2))= L(u_2)[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K