I Proof that the general solution of a linear equation is....

Woolyabyss
Messages
142
Reaction score
1
any particular solution plus the general solution to the homogeneous equation.

I'm having difficuilty understanding this proof from my lecture notes

Theorem
: Let T : V → W be a linear transformation. Let w ∈ W and suppose T(u0) = w

T(v) = 0. where v ∈ V (the kernel )

to prove:
T(u) = w, where u = u0 + v

proof: (from my lecture notes)

First, we show that every vector of the form u = u0 + v
where T(u0) = w and T(v) = 0, satisfies T(u) = w:
T(u) = T(u0 + v) = T(u0) + T(v) = w + 0 = w

Now we show that every solution looks like this.
Suppose that T(u) = w. Let v = u − u0.
Then u0 + v = u0 + (u − u0) = u and v is in the kernel of
T: T(v) = T(u − u0) = T(u) − T(u0) = w − w = 0

I can follow the first part of the proof. The second part is where I'm having difficulty. I'm not sure how the last three lines show that every solution looks like u = u0 + w, particularly the second last line. Is that not showing what we were already given?
Any help would be appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Replace
"Suppose that T(u) = w. Let v = u - u0"
by
"Suppose that T(y) = w. Let v = y - u0 "
and now it no longer shows what we were already given !
 
  • Like
Likes Woolyabyss
This is the way that makes sense to me:

Assume T(a)=w =T(b). Then T(a)-T(b)=T(a-b)=0 , so a-b ## \in K ## ; K :=Kernel T.

Then a-b=k, so a =b+K. Then T(b)=w iff b=a-K . EDIT: BTW this is related to one of the
isomorphism theorems stating that if T: V-->W is a homeomorphism (a linear map, in our case)

with kernel K , then T: V/K --> T(W) is an isomorphism. Moding out by the kernel just collapses
elements with the same preimage, so you get a linear bijection between V/K and the image.
 
Last edited:
##\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