1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Linear transformations

  1. Jun 28, 2006 #1
    If i am given a linear transformation D:A->A,that is followed by
    A=ImD(+)kerD
    and i am asked to prove that kerD^2=kerD and imD=imD^2.

    instead of trying to work it out the hard way by showing that every element of KerD is an element of kerD^2 , both directions.

    would it not be easier to just say that dimA=dimA and hence the two structures are isomorphic which means that KerD={0} and ImD=A.

    same goes for D^2:A->A
    KerD^2={0}
    ImD^2=A

    => therefore KerD^2=KerD and ImD^2=ImD ?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 28, 2006 #2

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why does it mean that?
     
  4. Jun 28, 2006 #3

    AKG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What two structures?
    Huh? I'm not sure what in the world you're doing, but just because A is isomorphic to A doesn't mean that every linear map D:A->A is an isomorphism. Is that what you were thinking?
     
  5. Jun 28, 2006 #4
    According to my book two vector spaces of the same dimension are isomorphic to eachother.
    and the proof also apparently seems to be pretty simple.
    If B is a basis for A, then we can easily show that ImD=A
    and that T is injective and if T is injective then KerD={0}
     
  6. Jun 28, 2006 #5

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're forgetting one of the hypotheses for the theorem -- you need D to be an isomorphism.
     
  7. Jun 28, 2006 #6
    yes akg unfortunately that is what i was thinking, that if the two were isomorphic to eachother, then the map would necessairly be an isormophism.

    just a few minutes before hurkyl put his post up, i was about to say that i went over the theorems in my book again, and that my line of thought was incorrect.

    anyway, thank you all.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Linear transformations
  1. Linear Transformations (Replies: 2)

  2. Linear transformation (Replies: 4)

  3. Linear transformation (Replies: 4)

  4. Linear transformations (Replies: 6)

  5. Linear transformation (Replies: 5)

Loading...