Matrix corresponding to linear transformation is invertible iff it is onto?

Aziza
Messages
189
Reaction score
1
Let A be a nxn matrix corresponding to a linear transformation.
Is it true that A is invertible iff A is onto? (ie, the image of A is the entire codomain of the transformation)
In other words, is it sufficient to show that A is onto so as to show that A is invertible?
That was what my professor said but I am having trouble understanding this..could someone please prove this or direct me to a proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aziza said:
Let A be a nxn matrix corresponding to a linear transformation.
Is it true that A is invertible iff A is onto? (ie, the image of A is the entire codomain of the transformation)

Yes

In other words, is it sufficient to show that A is onto so as to show that A is invertible?
That was what my professor said but I am having trouble understanding this..could someone please prove this or direct me to a proof?


$$A\,\,\text{is onto}\,\,\Longleftrightarrow \dim(Im A)=n\Longleftrightarrow \dim(\ker A)=0\Longleftrightarrow A\,\,\text{ is }\,\,1-1$$

DonAntonio
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top