Proving a transformation is not linear

Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
For a certain transformation T, it is known that T(x+y) = T(x) + T(y)

It is required to determine whether this transformation is linear. Obviously it is not, since it need not satisfy the degree-1 homogeneity property of all linear maps.

I'm just having trouble cooking up the counterexample. Any ideas? Thanks!

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is ##T:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}##?
And are there other things known about ##T## such as continuity?

If ##T:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}## and it is indeed true that the only thing you know is ##T(x + y) = T(x) + T(y)## then there is a counterexample for linearity. This is not an easy counterexample however. It consist in looking at ##\mathbb{R}## as a ##\mathbb{Q}##-vector space. As such, we have a basis ##\{e_i\}_{i\in I}## of ##\mathbb{R}##. So any element ##x\in \mathbb{R}## can be written uniquely as

x = \sum_{i\in I}\alpha_i e_i

for some rational numbers ##\alpha_i\in \mathbb{Q}## such that only finitely many ##\alpha_i## are nonzero. Now take ##j\in I## fixed an consider

T(x) = \alpha_j

this map satisfies ##T(x+y) = T(x) + T(y)##, but not ##T(\lambda x) = \lambda T(x)## for all ##\lambda \in \mathbb{R}## (it does satisfy it for ##\lambda in \mathbb{Q}## though).
 
I see. What about the following transformation T: ℂ → ℝ where T(x) = Re(x). If the field is the complex field, then the scalar i causes homogeneity to fail. Additivity is trivially shown.

Is this valid?

BiP
 
If you have a map ##T:V\rightarrow W## then it's assumed that both maps have the same scalar field (otherwise linear makes no sense). So I assume that both ##\mathbb{C}## and ##\mathbb{R}## are ##\mathbb{R}##-vector spaces. But then the map you mention is linear.
 
micromass said:
If you have a map ##T:V\rightarrow W## then it's assumed that both maps have the same scalar field (otherwise linear makes no sense). So I assume that both ##\mathbb{C}## and ##\mathbb{R}## are ##\mathbb{R}##-vector spaces. But then the map you mention is linear.

I'm sorry, if I redefined the transformation as:
##T:ℂ\rightarrow ℂ## then is my example valid?

BiP
 
Bipolarity said:
I'm sorry, if I redefined the transformation as:
##T:ℂ\rightarrow ℂ## then is my example valid?

BiP

Yes, that would be a valid example.
 
##\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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top