Matrices problem, K = ? so that its a linear transformation R^3->R^2?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the value of k in a matrix representing a linear transformation from R^3 to R^2. The matrix is given as part of the transformation definition, and the discussion centers around conditions for the transformation to be onto.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the matrix structure for the transformation's properties, particularly focusing on the conditions under which the transformation is onto. Questions arise regarding the role of k and its relationship to the row reduction process.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, sharing their reasoning and calculations. Some have offered insights into the row reduction process and its impact on the value of k, while others express confusion about the implications of their findings. There is a collaborative effort to clarify misunderstandings and explore different interpretations of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the requirement that the second row of the row-reduced matrix must not be [0 0 0] for the transformation to be onto. Participants are also grappling with the implications of specific values of k and how they affect the transformation's properties.

mr_coffee
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone, I'm confused on this problem:
It says:
A linear transformation T:R^3->R^2 whose matrix is
2 -4 -3
-3 6 0+k

is onto if k != ?
!= meaning, not equal.

So my thinking was, For it to be a transformation into R^2, doesn't that mean k isn't suppose mean that the column
-3
0+k
has to some how come out to be
0
0
so your only left with
2 -4
-3 6

so that would be in R^2 right?
i'm confused, am i thinking wrong? or is there some trick to easily find what k isn't suppose to be? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
T will be "onto" R2 as long as, after row reduction, the second row is not [0 0 0]. What value of k would make the second row [0 0 0]?
 
THanks Halls, but I'm slighly confused,
I row reduced and got:
2 -4 -3
0 0 2k

so 2k = 0?
so no value of k will equal 0, unless its 0, which isn't right.
So i thought maybe i have to write it out like:
2x - 4y -3k = 0
0 + 0 +2k = 0
k = 0;
2x -4y = 0;
so if x = 2, and y = 1 then u'll get 0 = 0, but that's for the top row...hm..what am i not getting? THanks!
 
You started with
[2 -4 -3]
[-3 6 0+k]
which I take to mean
[2 -4 -3]
[-3 6 k]

To "row-reduce" add 3/2 the first row to the second row.
3/2(2)= 3 and adding that to -3 gives 0
3/2(-4)= -6 and adding that to 6 gives 0
3/2(-3)= -9/2 and adding that to k give k- 9/2. that will equal 0 when
k= 9/2.
 
ahhh i c were I messed up! thanks Ivy it worked great! :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K