MHB Proving disjoint of Kernel and Image of a linear mapping

rputra
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
I am working on a problem that goes like this:

Show that $Ker (F) \cap I am (F) = \{0\}$ if $F: W \rightarrow W$ is linear and if $F^4 = F.$

I have the solution but there is one step which I need help: (the delineation is mine)

(1) Suppose that there exists $x$, such that $x \in Ker(F) \cap Im(F)$
(2) From $x \in Ker(F)$, we have $F(x) = 0$, by definition of kernel of a mapping
(3) From $x \in Im(F)$, there exists $w \in W$, such that $F(w) = x$
(4) Then we have
$$\begin{align}
F^4(w) &= F^3(F(w))\\
&= F^3(x)\\
&= F^2(F(x))\\
&= F^2(0)\\
&= 0.
\end{align}$$
(5) Since we have $F^4(w) = 0, F^4(w) = F(w)$, and $F(w) = x$, we conclude that $x = 0$. Hence $Ker(F) \cap Im(F) = \{0\}$, as desired.

Here is the one step I did not understand: In the last line of step (4), why is that $F^2(0) = 0$? Any help would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your time in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tarrant said:
I am working on a problem that goes like this:

Show that $Ker (F) \cap I am (F) = \{0\}$ if $F: W \rightarrow W$ is linear and if $F^4 = F.$

I have the solution but there is one step which I need help: (the delineation is mine)

(1) Suppose that there exists $x$, such that $x \in Ker(F) \cap Im(F)$
(2) From $x \in Ker(F)$, we have $F(x) = 0$, by definition of kernel of a mapping
(3) From $x \in Im(F)$, there exists $w \in W$, such that $F(w) = x$
(4) Then we have
$$\begin{align}
F^4(w) &= F^3(F(w))\\
&= F^3(x)\\
&= F^2(F(x))\\
&= F^2(0)\\
&= 0.
\end{align}$$
(5) Since we have $F^4(w) = 0, F^4(w) = F(w)$, and $F(w) = x$, we conclude that $x = 0$. Hence $Ker(F) \cap Im(F) = \{0\}$, as desired.

Here is the one step I did not understand: In the last line of step (4), why is that $F^2(0) = 0$? Any help would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your time in advance.

Hey Tarrant!

For a linear transformation $F$, we have that $F(\mathbf 0)=\mathbf 0$.
Proof
Suppose $F(\mathbf 0)\ne \mathbf 0$, then for any $\mathbf u$ we have that $F(\mathbf 0) = F(0\cdot \mathbf u)=0\cdot F(\mathbf u)=\mathbf 0$. Contradiction. Therefore $F(\mathbf 0)=\mathbf 0$.
 
I like Serena said:
Hey Tarrant!

For a linear transformation $F$, we have that $F(\mathbf 0)=\mathbf 0$.
Proof
Suppose $F(\mathbf 0)\ne \mathbf 0$, then for any $\mathbf u$ we have that $F(\mathbf 0) = F(0\cdot \mathbf u)=0\cdot F(\mathbf u)=\mathbf 0$. Contradiction. Therefore $F(\mathbf 0)=\mathbf 0$.

Ok, thanks. It follows the definition of linear mapping: For $c$ an arbitrary real number, $F(cx) = cF(x)$ which leads to $F(0) = 0$ for $c = 0.$ Thank you again for your time.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
904
Replies
41
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
933
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
687