Prove the sequence is exact: 0 → ker(f) → V → im(f) → 0

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the exactness of the sequence 0 → ker(f) → V → im(f) → 0 for a linear operator f: V → V on a finite-dimensional vector space V. The sequence is shown to be exact at im(f) and V, with im(c) equating to ker(d) and im(b) equating to ker(c), respectively. The challenge lies in demonstrating the exactness at ker(f), where the user struggles to connect im(a) to ker(b) effectively. The definition of the mapping b: ker(f) → V is highlighted as critical to resolving this issue.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear operators and their properties
  • Familiarity with kernel and image of linear transformations
  • Knowledge of exact sequences in linear algebra
  • Concept of finite-dimensional vector spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of linear transformations in detail
  • Learn about exact sequences and their applications in algebra
  • Explore the relationship between kernel and image in linear maps
  • Investigate the implications of defining linear maps on vector spaces
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying linear algebra, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to linear operators and exact sequences.

Apothem
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Problem:
Let f ∶ V → V be a linear operator on a finite-dimensional vector space V .
Prove that the sequence 0 → ker(f) → V → im(f) → 0 is exact at each term.

Attempt:
If I call:
  • a: 0 → ker(f),
  • b: ker(f) → V,
  • c: V → im(f),
  • d: im(f) → 0.
Then the sequence is exact at:
  • ker(f) if im(a)=ker(b),
  • V if im(b)=ker(c),
  • im(f) if im(c)=ker(d).

I can show this for the following:

At im(f):
im(c)={c(v) | v∈V }=im(f)={e∈im(f) | d(e)=0}=ker(d)

At V:
im(b)={b(v) | v∈ker(f)}=ker(f)={e∈V | c(e)=0 ∈ im(f)}=ker(c)

I'm having trouble showing it is exact at ker(f) though. I know that im(a)=0 and ker(b)={v∈ker(f) | b(v)=0 ∈V} however doesn't this mean that ker(b)=ker(f), and so how can I deduce that ker(b)=ker(f)=im(a)=0?

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You must have a look on the definition of ##b : \ker(f) \rightarrow V##. E.g. if we defined ##b =0## then ##b## would still be linear and a map from ##\ker (f)## to ##V##. So the way how ## b## is defined is crucial here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K