Linear Transformations: Explaining the Theorem

finkeljo
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I don't quite understand the idea that (as my book says) every linear transformation with domain Rn and codomain Rm is a matrix transofrmation... I mean i get the idea of what a linear transformation is (sorta like a function) but it gives the theorem:

Let T: Rn -> Rm be linear. Then there is a unique m x n matrix

A=[T(e1)T(e2)...T(en)]

Can some one just explain that a little bit? It may seem simple but I don't think my book does a good job providing enough background for the theorems they state.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
finkeljo said:
Can some one just explain that a little bit?
See this post. Ask if there's something you don't understand.
 
Note that
\begin{bmatrix}a_{11} & a_{12} & ... & a_{1n} \\ a_{21} & a_{23} & ... & a_{2n} \\ ... & ... & ... & ... \\ a_{m1}& a_{m2} & ... & a_{mn}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 0 \\ ... \\ 0\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}a_{11} \\ a_{21} \\ ... \\a_{m1}\end{bmatrix}

What do you get if you multiply that same matrix by
\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 & ... & 0\end{bmatrix}
etc.?

Do you see that applying any linear transformation to the basis vectors in[math]R^n[math] gives you the columns of the matrix representation?

(This is, by the way, "unique" only in the standard bases for R^n and R^m. If L is a linear transformation from vector space U to vector space V, you can get different matrix representations for every different choice of basis for U or V.)
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top