Proving the Linear Transformation definition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving properties of linear transformations, specifically the equation f(a\bar{x}+b\bar{y})=af(\bar{x})+bf(\bar{y}) for real numbers a and b. Participants explore the derivation of this definition from given properties and seek clarification on the steps involved, particularly regarding integer and rational values of a.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to prove the linear transformation property using previously established results, specifically f(\bar{x}+\bar{y})=f(\bar{x})+f(\bar{y}).
  • Another participant asserts that the result being proven is the definition of a linear transformation, suggesting it cannot be proven.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the book's approach, which claims to derive the result without starting from the definition of linear transformations.
  • There is a discussion about how to extend the proof from integers to rational numbers, with one participant suggesting that if the property holds for integers, it should also hold for rationals.
  • A later reply introduces a counterexample to illustrate that the property may not hold for irrational values without continuity assumptions on f.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the property can be proven as stated. There are competing views regarding the derivation of the linear transformation definition and the applicability of the results to rational and real numbers.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the book's explanations and the necessity of continuity for certain proofs. The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions and the unresolved nature of extending results to real numbers.

Aleoa
Messages
128
Reaction score
5
HI .I'm trying to prove that, for a linear transformation, it is worth that:

[tex]f(a\bar{x}+b\bar{y})=af(\bar{x})+bf(\bar{y})[/tex] for every real numbers a and b.

Until now, I have proved by myself that

[tex]f(\bar{x}+\bar{y})=f(\bar{x})+f(\bar{y})[/tex].

and , using this result i proved that:

[tex]f(a\bar{v}) = f(\sum\bar{v})\text{(Sum it $a$ times)}[/tex].
[tex]=\sum f(\bar{v})[/tex].
[tex]=af(\bar{v})[/tex].
for every integer a.

How can I use this result in order to prove that
[tex]f(a\bar{v}) = af(\bar{v})[/tex]
for every [tex]a\in \mathbb{R}[/tex] ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The result you are trying to prove is the definition of a linear transformation. You can't prove this.
 
Hi @PeroK . Thanks for the reply.
I don't know, my book says it's possible to derive this result as i asked in my first post, even if it doesn't show how.

I upload the book's section I'm referring:
Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-53-27.png
Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-52-52.png


The book doens't start with the definition of Linear Trasformation, but try to deduce it.
 

Attachments

  • Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-53-27.png
    Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-53-27.png
    23.8 KB · Views: 519
  • Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-53-27.png
    Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-53-27.png
    23.8 KB · Views: 614
  • Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-52-52.png
    Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-52-52.png
    34 KB · Views: 621
How is ##f## defined?
 
Simply says that f is a one-to-one affine trasformation that keeps the origin fixed.
Before, it says that the affine trasformation is a trasformation that carries lines to lines
 
Aleoa said:
Simply says that f is a one-to-one affine trasformation that keeps the origin fixed.
Before, it says that the affine trasformation is a trasformation that carries lines to lines

Don't you think it might have been important to say that in the OP?
 
PeroK said:
Don't you think it might have been important to say that in the OP?

I'm sorry. I'm here for improving :)
 
Anyone ?
 
Well, in the section you quoted, it says "The proof of this fact is a little tricky, and we will prove it in an appendix..."
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aleoa
  • #10
What i don't understand are the deductions done by my book, and you can see them in the 2 pictures i posted.
 
  • #11
[tex]f(a\bar{v}) = f(\sum\bar{v})\text{(Sum it $a$ times)}[/tex].
[tex]=\sum f(\bar{v})[/tex].
[tex]=af(\bar{v})[/tex].
for every integer a.

One thing I am not able to understand is how use this demonstration in order to prove
[tex]f(a\bar{v}) =af(\bar{v})[/tex].
for every rational a.

My book does this implicitly in this image, but i don't understand what it did...

Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-52-52.png
 

Attachments

  • Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-52-52.png
    Schermata del 2018-03-27 08-52-52.png
    34 KB · Views: 841
  • #12
Aleoa said:
One thing I am not able to understand is how use this demonstration in order to prove
[tex]f(a\bar{v}) =af(\bar{v})[/tex].
for every rational a.

My book does this implicitly in this image, but i don't understand what it did...

View attachment 222881

I'm not sure about the picture, either. But it seems to me that if it's true for integers, it has to be true for rationals, as well.

##f(n \cdot \frac{x}{n}) = n f(\frac{x}{n})##

Therefore, ##f(\frac{x}{n}) = \frac{1}{n} f(x)##.

##f(\frac{m}{n} \cdot x) = m f(\frac{x}{n}) = \frac{m}{n} f(x)##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aleoa
  • #13
stevendaryl said:
I'm not sure about the picture, either. But it seems to me that if it's true for integers, it has to be true for rationals, as well.

##f(n \cdot \frac{x}{n}) = n f(\frac{x}{n})##

Therefore, ##f(\frac{x}{n}) = \frac{1}{n} f(x)##.

##f(\frac{m}{n} \cdot x) = m f(\frac{x}{n}) = \frac{m}{n} f(x)##

Thanks so much. Why can't i directly derive this proof to real values of a ?
 
  • #14
Aleoa said:
Thanks so much. Why can't i directly derive this proof to real values of a ?

Well, this is a pretty lame example, but suppose I define ##f(x)## this way:
  • If ##x## is rational, then ##f(x) = x##
  • If ##x## is irrational, then ##f(x) = 2x##
If ##q## is rational, then ##f(qx) = q f(x)##. But if ##q = \sqrt{2}## and ##x = \sqrt{2}##, then ##f(qx) = f(2) = 2##, but ##q f(x) = \sqrt{2} f(\sqrt{2}) = 4##

You need to know that ##f(x)## is continuous in order to prove ##f(qx) = q f(x)## when ##q## is irrational.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K