Proof of composite linear transformations

Flyboy27
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Prove that if T:R^{m} \rightarrow R^{n} and U:R^{n} \rightarrow R^{p} are linear transformations that are both onto, then UT:R^{n} \rightarrow R^{p} is also onto.

Can anyone point me in the right direction? Is there a theorem that I can pull out of the def'n of onto that I can begin this proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
this is trivial, direct from definition of onto.
 


To prove that UT is onto, we need to show that for every vector y in R^p, there exists a vector x in R^m such that UT(x) = y.

Since U is onto, for every vector y in R^p, there exists a vector z in R^n such that U(z) = y.

And since T is onto, for every vector z in R^n, there exists a vector x in R^m such that T(x) = z.

Therefore, for every vector y in R^p, there exists a vector x in R^m such that UT(x) = U(T(x)) = U(z) = y.

Hence, UT is onto, and the proof is complete.

This proof uses the definition of onto, which states that a linear transformation is onto if every element in the codomain (R^p in this case) has at least one preimage in the domain (R^m in this case). By using the onto property of both T and U, we can show that UT also satisfies this property and is therefore onto.
 
##\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...
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...
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...
Back
Top