(n-1)-dimensional subspace is the null space of a linear functional

Click For Summary
N is an (n-1)-dimensional subspace of an n-dimensional vector space V, and it can be shown that N is the null space of a linear functional. A linear functional is defined based on its action on a basis of the vector space, meaning that if a basis for N is chosen, the functional must satisfy f(α_i) = 0 for each basis vector α_i. This leads to the conclusion that any linear functional can be constructed such that it maps all vectors in N to zero while assigning arbitrary non-zero values to the remaining basis vectors of V. Consequently, the null space of the functional corresponds precisely to the subspace N. Thus, the relationship between N and the linear functional is established through this construction.
yifli
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Given that N is an (n-1)-dimensional subspace of an n-dimensional vector space V, show that N is the null space of a linear functional.

My thoughts:

suppose \alpha_i(1\leq i \leq n-1) is the basis of N, the linear functional in question has to satisfy f(\alpha_i)=0.

Am I correct?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that is already correct!
 
Given a basis for any vector space, any linear functional depends only upon its "action" on those basis vectors- that, is given f(v1)= x1, f(v2)= x2, ..., f(vn)= xn where the v's are the basis vectors and the a's are scalars, then any vector v can be written as v= a1v1+ a2v2+ ...+ anvn for some scalars, a1, a2, ..., an. Since f is linear, f(v)= a1f(v1)+ a2f(v2)+ ...+ anf(vn)=a1x1+ a2x2+ ... anxn.

Given any subspace U of vector space V, select a basis {u1, u2,...,um} for U and extend it to a basis for V. Define f(u1)= f(u2)= ...= f(um)= 0 and define f to be whatever nonzero values you like for the other basis vectors. Then the nullspace of f is exactly U.
 
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 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K