Prove the inverse image is a subspace.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the inverse image T-1(X) of a subspace X under a surjective linear transformation T: V → W is itself a subspace of V. Key points include the necessity to demonstrate closure under vector addition and scalar multiplication, as well as the inclusion of the zero vector in T-1(X). The properties of vector spaces are inherited from the original space V, simplifying the proof process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear transformations and their properties
  • Knowledge of vector spaces and subspaces
  • Familiarity with closure properties in vector spaces
  • Basic concepts of finite-dimensional spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of surjective linear transformations in linear algebra
  • Learn about the closure properties of vector spaces and subspaces
  • Explore examples of proving subspaces in finite-dimensional vector spaces
  • Investigate the implications of the kernel of a linear transformation on subspaces
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in linear algebra, mathematicians focusing on vector space theory, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of linear transformations and their effects on subspaces.

trap101
Messages
339
Reaction score
0
Let T: V-->W be a surjective linear transformation and let X be a subspace of W. Assume tat Ker(T) and X are finite dimensonal.

Prove that T^-1 (X) = {v | T(v) is in X} is a subspace of V.


Ok I absolutely suck at showing things are a subspace of something...I don't even know where to start.


Thanks for the help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a "subspace" is a subset U of a vector space V that is a vector space in its own right, when the vector addtion of V is restricted to U and the scalar multiplication is restricted to U.

since the operation on U is really "the same one" as on V, there are certain axioms of the entire canon of axioms of a vector space we don't actually have to prove for U, because they hold just as they did for V.

for example, if u+v = v+u for all u,v in V, then it is certainly STILL true if we insist that u,v are in U (since U is a subset of V, so everything in U is also in V).

but there are some things we "don't get for free".

we have no guarantee that when we restrict vector addition to U, that for u,v in U, that u+v will still BE in U. that is, that "+" restricted to U is a legitimate binary operation on U.

we also have no guarantee that for a scalar c, that cu will still be in U (which has to be true for U to be a vector space).

finally, the empty set is NEVER a vector space (every vector space contains, at minimum, a 0-vector. that's as small as a vector space can get). so it behooves us to ensure that something is actually IN our "subspace" U.

so typically, to establish a subSET is a subSPACE, you need to show 3 things:

a)if u,v are in U, so is u+v (closure of vector addition)
b)if c is in F, and u is in U, then cu is in U (closure of scalar multiplication)
c)the 0-vector of V is in U (alternatively, U is non-empty).
 
trap101 said:
Ok I absolutely suck at showing things are a subspace of something...I don't even know where to start.

How about showing closure under addition and scalar multiplication? The other vector space properties are inherited from the original space.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K