Linear transformation, subspace and kernel

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a linear transformation g from the space of 2x2 matrices to the real numbers, specifically focusing on the kernel of g, which consists of symmetric 2x2 matrices. Participants are exploring how to define this transformation and the implications of its kernel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand how to express the linear transformation g and its relationship with symmetric matrices. Questions arise regarding the values of parameters in the transformation and the nature of the kernel.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their thoughts on how to construct the transformation and questioning the definitions and implications of the kernel. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between the transformation and the basis of symmetric matrices.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the need for clarity in expressing mathematical ideas, particularly in defining the transformation g and its action on the basis of matrices. Participants are also grappling with the implications of having symmetric matrices in the kernel.

Tala.S
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Hi

We have a linear transformation g : ℝ^2x2 → ℝ g has U as kernel,

U: the 2x2 symmetric matrices

(ab)
(bc)

A basis for U is

(10)(01)(00)
(01)(10)(01)I thought this would be easy but I've been sitting with the problem for a while and I have no clue on how to solve it (maybe because I don't fully understand it).

But this is how I understand it : we need to find a linear transformation that transforms symmetric 2x2 matrices (R^4) to 1x1 matrices (R), so we have

g(a,b,b,c) = (a b b c) = 0

?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Tala.S said:
Hi

We have a linear transformation g : ℝ^2x2 → ℝ g has U as kernel,

U: the 2x2 symmetric matrices

(ab)
(bc)

A basis for U is

(10)(01)(00)
(01)(10)(01)


I thought this would be easy but I've been sitting with the problem for a while and I have no clue on how to solve it (maybe because I don't fully understand it).

But this is how I understand it : we need to find a linear transformation that transforms symmetric 2x2 matrices (R^4) to 1x1 matrices (R), so we have

g(a,b,b,c) = (a b b c) = 0

?

How about this? For a general 2x2 matrix [[a,b],[c,d]] you can write a linear transformation to R as g(a,b,c,d)=w*a+x*b+y*c+z*d. You have to find w,x,y,z such that g=0 if and only if the matrix is symmetric.
 
But how can we find the values for w,x,y and z so that g = 0 when we don't even know the values of a,b,b and c ?
 
Tala.S said:
But how can we find the values for w,x,y and z so that g = 0 when we don't even know the values of a,b,b and c ?

Try sample matrices. Like your basis for U.
 
like this :

a * [[1,0],[0,0]] + b * [[0,1],[1,0]] + c * [[0,0],[0,1]] = 0 ?
 
Tala.S said:
like this :

a * [[1,0],[0,0]] + b * [[0,1],[1,0]] + c * [[0,0],[0,1]] = 0 ?

No. Take a matrix in your basis. Like [[1,0],[0,0]]. Figure out what a,b,c and d are. Then put them into the form for g. You want g to give you a real number, not a matrix.
 
a * [[1,0],[0,0]] + b * [[1,0],[0,0]] + c * [[1,0],[0,0]] +d* [[1,0],[0,0]] = 0

(a,b,c,d) = 0

But shouldn't it be a [[a,b],[b,c]] matrix ?
 
Tala.S said:
a * [[1,0],[0,0]] + b * [[1,0],[0,0]] + c * [[1,0],[0,0]] +d* [[1,0],[0,0]] = 0

(a,b,c,d) = 0

But shouldn't it be a [[a,b],[b,c]] matrix ?

No again. Let's back up. Let's take a basis of R2x2. e1=[[1,0],[0,0]], e2=[[0,1],[0,0]], e3=[[0,0],[1,0]], e4=[[0,0],[0,1]]. That's a basis for R2x2, right? What should g(e1) be?
 
g(e1) = [[1,0,0,0]]

g(e2) = [[0,1,0,0]]

g(e3) = [[0,0,1,0]]

g(e4) = [[0,0,0,1]]
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Tala.S said:
g(e1) = [[1,0],[0,0]]

g(e2) = [[0,1],[1,0]]

g(e3) = [[0,0],[0,1]]

No no. g is a linear transformation from R2x2 to R! R is the real numbers, not matrices. g(e1) should be a number. Which number?
 
  • #11
1?

I'm still confused because we don't have g and I'm not sure what the method is to find g.
 
  • #12
Tala.S said:
1?

I'm still confused because we don't have g and I'm not sure what the method is to find g.

Nope, you don't have g yet. We are still working on that. But you do know e1 is symmetric, so e1 is in U the kernel of g. What does that tell you about g(e1)?
 
  • #13
But isn't e1 =[[1,0],[0,0]] ? How is this symmetric?
 
  • #14
Tala.S said:
But isn't e1 =[[1,0],[0,0]] ? How is this symmetric?

I'm using a shorthand. I mean [[1,0],[0,0]] to be the matrix whose first row is 1,0 and the second row is 0,0. That's symmetric. Yes?
 
  • #15
Is g(e1)=a
 
  • #16
Tala.S said:
Is g(e1)=a

What is 'a'? What does 'kernel' mean? Explain 'kernel' in your own words.
 
  • #17
Could the linear transformation be [0,1,-1,0] ?
 
  • #18
Tala.S said:
Could the linear transformation be [0,1,-1,0] ?

It would if you can tell me what that means. I would like you to define g by telling me how g acts on a basis. What are g(e1), g(e2), g(e3) and g(e4)?
 
  • #19
We need to find a linear transformation g: R^2x2 -> R that has U as kernel.
That means that all matrices of this type [a, b, b, c] will be transformed to zero since U is the kernel.
We need to find a linear transformation that 'sends' U to zero. Since we have two b's one can have a negative value and the other a positive value, a and c will be zero because we're going to multiply it with zero.
So no matter what the value of b is it will always be zero because +b-b = 0.

So our linear transformation can be :

[0,1,-1,0] or [0,-1,1,0]

?
 
  • #20
Tala.S said:
We need to find a linear transformation g: R^2x2 -> R that has U as kernel.
That means that all matrices of this type [a, b, b, c] will be transformed to zero since U is the kernel.
We need to find a linear transformation that 'sends' U to zero. Since we have two b's one can have a negative value and the other a positive value, a and c will be zero because we're going to multiply it with zero.
So no matter what the value of b is it will always be zero because +b-b = 0.

So our linear transformation can be :

[0,1,-1,0] or [0,-1,1,0]

?

Absolutely right. But just writing [0,1,-1,0] doesn't say what you just told me. You mean that g([[a,b],[c,d]])=0*a+1*b+(-1)*c+0*d, right?
 
  • #21
Yes that's what I mean :)
 
  • #22
Tala.S said:
Yes that's what I mean :)

Great! Now try and think of ways to express yourself more clearly. Just saying '[0,1,-1,0]' is more of a puzzle than an answer.
 
  • #23
Are you thinking about g(e1), g(e2), g(e3) and g(e4)?
 
  • #24
Tala.S said:
Are you thinking about g(e1), g(e2), g(e3) and g(e4)?

I was thinking that in the general you don't explain enough when you write something down, but sure, speaking of those, writing [0,1,-1,0] doesn't tell me much. Wouldn't giving the values of g(e1), g(e2), g(e3) and g(e4) describe the tranformation more clearly?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K