MHB Matrix of Linear Transformation T with P2: Find, Ker, Im & Inverse

Click For Summary
The matrix of the linear transformation T defined by T(p(x)) = (x+1)p'(x) - p(x) with respect to the standard basis B={1,x,x^2} for P2 is given as A_T = [-1 1 0; 0 0 2; 0 0 1]. The kernel of T is spanned by the vector [1, 1, 0], indicating that dim(ker T) is 1. The image of T is spanned by the vectors [-1, 0, 0] and [0, 2, 1], leading to dim(Im T) being 2. Since the kernel is not of dimension 0, T does not have an inverse.
Kaspelek
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Where T(p(x)) = (x+1)p'(x) - p(x) and p'(x) is derivative of p(x).

a) Find the matrix of T with respect to the standard basis B={1,x,x^2} for P2.

T(1) = (x+1) * 0 - 1 = -1 = -1 + 0x + 0x^2
T(x) = (x+1) * 1 - x = 1 = 1 + 0x + 0x^2
T(x^2) = (x+1) * 2x - x^2 = 2x + x^2 = 0 + 2x + x^2

So, the matrix for T with respect to B equals
[-1 1 0]
[0 0 2]
[0 0 1].b) Find a basis for kerT and hence write down dim(kerT).

c) Find a basis for ImT and hence write down dim(ImT).

d) Does the transformation have an inverse?I've done part a, so any guidance on the rest would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kaspelek said:
Where T(p(x)) = (x+1)p'(x) - p(x) and p'(x) is derivative of p(x).

a) Find the matrix of T with respect to the standard basis B={1,x,x^2} for P2.

T(1) = (x+1) * 0 - 1 = -1 = -1 + 0x + 0x^2
T(x) = (x+1) * 1 - x = 1 = 1 + 0x + 0x^2
T(x^2) = (x+1) * 2x - x^2 = 2x + x^2 = 0 + 2x + x^2

So, the matrix for T with respect to B equals
[-1 1 0]
[0 0 2]
[0 0 1].b) Find a basis for kerT and hence write down dim(kerT).

As you've correctly stated, we may express the transformation in the form
$$
A_T=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right]
$$

Now as for $$ker(T)$$, we proceed to find the kernel of this transformation in the same way as we would for any other transformation. That is, we would like to solve $$A_T x=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}0 & 0 & 0\end{array} \right]^T$$, which requires we put the augmented matrix
$$\left( A_T|0 \right) =
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 1 & 0 & | & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 2 & | & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & | & 0 \end{array} \right]
$$
in its reduced row echelon form (of course, this problem could be solved with a little intuition instead of row reduction, but the upshot of this method is that it works where your intuition might fail). You should end up with
$$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & -1 & 0 & | & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & | & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & | & 0 \end{array} \right]
$$
Which tells you that the kernel of the transformation is the set of all polynomials $$a+bx+cx^2$$ such that $$a-b=0$$ and $$c=0$$. Thus, we may state that the kernel of $$T$$ is spanned by the vector
$$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}1 & 1 & 0\end{array} \right]^T$$, which is thus the basis of the kernel of T. Since there is one vector in the basis, the dimension of the kernel is 1.

Any questions about the process so far?
 
Last edited:
Kaspelek said:
c) Find a basis for ImT and hence write down dim(ImT).

d) Does the transformation have an inverse?

For c), what we need to do is find the largest possible set of linearly independent column-vectors. If you wanted to use the rref (reduced row echelon form) that we computed previously, you simply choose the column vectors corresponding to the 1's (i.e. the "pivots") of the reduced matrix. That is, choosing the first and third columns, we find that $$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}-1 & 0 & 0\end{array} \right]^T$$ and $$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}0 & 2 & 1\end{array} \right]^T$$ form a basis of the image. It follows that $$dim(Im(T))=2$$.

For d), we simply note that the kernel of this transformation is not of dimension 0. This is enough to state that the transformation does not have an inverse.
 
Last edited:
Something better to express the solutions as vectors of $P_2$ instead of coordinates. That is, $B_{\ker T}=\{1+x\}$ and $B_{\mbox{Im }T}=\{-1,2x+x^2\}$.
 
That helped a lot guys, thanks a lot.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K