Linera Transformation Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter JinM
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transformation
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around linear transformations, specifically examining the properties of a set defined by the preimages of a linear transformation. The original poster presents a scenario involving a linear transformation T from vector space W to vector space V, where certain elements map to the same vector in V.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between two sets defined by the linear transformation and question how to demonstrate that these sets are equivalent. They discuss the implications of elements in the kernel of T and their relation to the defined sets.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants examining the definitions and properties of the sets involved. Some guidance is offered regarding the relationship between elements of the sets, but no consensus has been reached on the proof of their equivalence.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of proving set equality in the context of linear transformations, with specific focus on the kernel of T and its implications for the elements of the sets S_1 and S_2.

JinM
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone,

Let T: W -> V be a linear transformation and T(w_1) = v_1 for some w_1 \in W and v_1 \in V. Now set S = {w \in W | T(w) = T(w_1) = v_1}. Prove that S = w_1 + Kernel(T) = {w_1 + a | a \in Ker(T)}.

Let w \in S. T(w_1) = T(w) = T(w) + T(a) = T(w_1) + T(a) = T(w_1 + a) = v_1, where a \in Ker(T).

Thus

S_1 = {w \in W | T(w) = T(w_1) = v_1}; S_2 = {w_1 + a | a \in Ker(t)}

S_1 = S_2 = S and we're done. Correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm...

All elements of S = S_1 constitute elements whose images are v_1, and the elements of S_2 constitute elements whose images are v_1. Now how can I prove they're no preimages in S_1 that aren't present in S_2 and vice versa?
 
JinM said:
[tex]\mbox{Let} \ \vec{w} \in S. \ \ T(\vec{w_1}) = T(\vec{w}) = T(\vec{w}) + T(\vec{a}) = T(\vec{w_1}) + T(\vec{a}) = T(\vec{w_1} + \vec{a}) = \vec{v_1}, \mbox{where} \ \vec{a} \in Ker(T)[/tex]
This looks ok, though the steps appear to be out of order.

Hmm...

All elements of S = S_1 constitute elements whose images are v_1, and the elements of S_2 constitute elements whose images are v_1. Now how can I prove there are no preimages in S_1 that aren't present in S_2 and vice versa?
You mean how do you prove there isn't any [tex]\vec{u} \in W \ | \ T(\vec{u}) \neq \vec{v_1}[/tex]? Didn't you just do that with the above? Note that by definition all such [tex]\vec{u} \ \mbox{can be expressed as} \ \vec{w_1} + \vec{a}[/tex]. What does that tell you?
 
If x is any member of S then T(x)= T(w_1)= w by definition of S. Now, let a= x- w_1 so that x= w_1+ a. It is easy to prove T(a)= 0 (do that yourself) and so x is in S_2.

Conversely, if x is any member of S_2, then x= w_1+ a by definition of S_2. But then T(x)= T(w_1+ a)= T(w_1)+ T(a)= ? (and so x is in S).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K