Matrices and Invertible Linear Transformations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The linear transformation T defined by T: [x] ---> [2y] and [y] ---> [x-3y] is invertible. The transformation matrix representing T is given as [0 2; 1 -3]. The determinant of this matrix is calculated as -2, which is non-zero, confirming the invertibility of the transformation. Additionally, the function is proven to be both "one-to-one" and "onto," satisfying the criteria for invertibility in linear transformations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear transformations
  • Knowledge of matrix representation
  • Familiarity with determinants and their significance
  • Concept of one-to-one and onto functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of invertible matrices in linear algebra
  • Learn how to compute determinants for various matrix sizes
  • Explore the implications of the Rank-Nullity Theorem
  • Investigate applications of linear transformations in computer graphics
USEFUL FOR

Students of linear algebra, mathematics educators, and anyone interested in understanding the concepts of invertible linear transformations and their applications in various fields.

war485
Messages
90
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



How do I know if this linear transformation is invertible or not?

T: [ x ] ---> [ 2y ]
[ y ] [ x-3y ]

(I also uploaded a small .bmp file to represent this if this looks too ugly)

The Attempt at a Solution



Well, I thought maybe it could be represented by a transformation matrix T
[ 0 2 ]
[ 1 -3 ]

So then I just took the inverse of T, which I got as
[ 1.5 1 ]
[ 0.5 0 ]

So does that mean that in the question, it is invertible? Because if it is, I'm getting the impression that these R2 to R2 linear transformations are invertible. Would this impression be correct?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, a linear transformation is invertible if and only if a matrix representing it in some basis is invertible. And that is the true if and only if the determinant is non-zero so just observing that 0(-3)- (1)(2)= -2 is sufficient.


Of course, from the basic definition a function is invertible if and only if it is "one-to-one" and "onto" so you could do this:
Suppose f[(x,y])= f(]x',y']). Then [2y, x- 3y]= [2y', x'- 3y'] so 2y= 2y' and y= y'. Then x- 3y= x' -3y'= x'- 3y so x= x'. The function is "one-to-one".

If [u, v] is any vector in R2, if f([x,y])= [u, v], then 2y= u and x- 3y= v. From the first equation, y= u/2 so x- 3y= x- (3/2)u= v and x= (3/2)u+ v. Yes, there exist [x, y] such that f([x,y])= [u, v] for any [u,v] so f is "onto".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K