Need for Separate Basis for Kernel: Explained by Hello

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vish_maths
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Kernel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the need for a separate basis for the kernel of a linear mapping L: V --> W. Participants explore the relationship between the kernel and the domain V, particularly in the context of linear transformations and the implications for dimensionality and basis representation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a separate basis for the kernel is necessary, suggesting that since the kernel is a subspace of V, any basis for V can express vectors in the kernel.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on the context in which a basis for the kernel is needed.
  • A participant acknowledges that while any basis for V spans the kernel, it does not provide a unique representation unless the kernel is trivial.
  • It is noted that unless the linear mapping L is the zero transformation, the dimension of V is greater than that of the kernel, implying that a basis for V will include linearly dependent vectors.
  • An example is provided illustrating a specific linear transformation from R2 to R2, where the standard basis spans the kernel but does not form a basis for it. A separate basis for the kernel is proposed, which can be extended to a basis for the entire space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of a separate basis for the kernel, with some arguing for its importance while others suggest that a basis for V suffices for spanning the kernel. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity of a separate basis.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that the representation of vectors in the kernel using a basis for V may not be unique, and the implications of dimensionality in relation to linear mappings are discussed without reaching a consensus.

vish_maths
Messages
60
Reaction score
1
hello :)

I was trying to prove the following result :
for a linear mapping L: V --> W
dimension of a domain V = dimension of I am (L) + dimension of kernel (L)

So, my doubt actually is that do we really need a separate basis for the kernel ?
Theoretically, the kernel is a subspace of the domain V . So, the basis for V can be used to express any vector in the kernel .

If we really need it, i think this might be the reason ( please check whether i am right or not )

The kernel directs the mapping to the zero vector. We are not interested in this trivial mapping. So, even though the basis vectors of V can clearly describe the vectors in kernel, we keep the vectors in kernel aside and are interested in only those vectors in V which do not produce the zero vector.

Then, since T(ki) = 0 where ki represents any vector in the kernel , ki too ought to be a part of the solution for any mapping. Hence, a separate basis which only can express any vector in the kernel is needed

Am i thinking on the right line ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Hi,

In what sense do you need to find a basis for the kernel?
 


vish_maths said:
hello :)

I was trying to prove the following result :
for a linear mapping L: V --> W
dimension of a domain V = dimension of I am (L) + dimension of kernel (L)

So, my doubt actually is that do we really need a separate basis for the kernel ?
Theoretically, the kernel is a subspace of the domain V . So, the basis for V can be used to express any vector in the kernel .

It's true that any basis for V spans the kernel. But the representation would not be unique (unless the kernel is trivial). So a basis for V will be a spanning set, but not a basis, for the kernel.
 


Ah, I see , that's what he/you meant.

Then Stevel27 is right; unless L==0, the dimension of the space is larger than that

of the kernel, so that a basis for the space contains a linearly-dependent set.
 


For example, the linear transformation, from R2 to R2, defined by (x, y)-> (x- y, y- x) has {(x, y)| y= x} as kernel. The "standard basis" for R2, {(1, 0), (0, 1)} spans the kernel but does not contain a basis for the kernel. On the other hand, a basis for the kernel can always be extended to a basis for the entire space: {(1, 1)} is a basis for the kernel and any set containing (1, 1) and a vector not a multiple of that, such as {(1, 1), (1, 0)} or {(1, 1), (0, 1)} or {(1, 1), (1, -1)}, is a basis for the entire space.
 


thank you all :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K