R-Linear and C-Linear Mapings .... ....

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the definitions and properties of $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings from $$\mathbb{C}$$ to $$\mathbb{C}$$, as presented in Reinhold Remmert's "Theory of Complex Functions." Participants seek clarity on these concepts, exploring their implications in different vector space contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express that Remmert's definitions of $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings are unclear, seeking first-principles definitions and examples.
  • One participant defines a map $$f:V\to W$$ as $$\mathbb{F}$$-linear if it satisfies additivity and scalar multiplication conditions, noting the differences in requirements for $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear versus $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings.
  • The complex conjugation map is presented as an example of an $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mapping but not $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear, with detailed reasoning provided for both cases.
  • There is a discussion on whether $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mappings can be viewed in the context of $$\mathbb{C}$$ as a vector space over $$\mathbb{C}$$, with some participants suggesting that this is indeed possible.
  • Clarifications are sought regarding the treatment of $$\mathbb{C}$$ as a vector space over $$\mathbb{R}$$ versus over $$\mathbb{C}$$, particularly in relation to the conjugation map and the implications for scalar multiplication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions of linear mappings but debate the implications of viewing $$\mathbb{C}$$ as a vector space over different fields. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the legitimacy of treating $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mappings in both contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the definitions and properties of linear mappings depend on the underlying field, leading to different interpretations and applications in various contexts. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in definitions and examples.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
R-Linear and C-Linear Mappings...

I am reading Reinhold Remmert's book "Theory of Complex Functions" ...I am focused on Chapter 0: Complex Numbers and Continuous Functions ... and in particular on Section 1.2:$$ \mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings of $$\mathbb{C}$$ into $$\mathbb{C}$$ ... ... I need help in order to get a clear idea of the definition and nature of $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings of \mathbb{C} into \mathbb{C} ... ...

Remmert's section on $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings of $$\mathbb{C}$$ into $$\mathbb{C}$$ reads as follows:View attachment 8534
View attachment 8535It seems to me (this may be unfair and I just may be missing the point! ... ) that Remmert has not clearly defined $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings ...

Can someone please give a first-principles definition of $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings ... and some simple examples ...Hope someone can help ... ... help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Remmert - 1 - R-linear and C-linear Mappings, Ch. 0, Section 1.2 ... PART 1 .png
    Remmert - 1 - R-linear and C-linear Mappings, Ch. 0, Section 1.2 ... PART 1 .png
    16.1 KB · Views: 153
  • Remmert - 2 - R-linear and C-linear Mappings, Ch. 0, Section 1.2 ... PART 2 .png
    Remmert - 2 - R-linear and C-linear Mappings, Ch. 0, Section 1.2 ... PART 2 .png
    44.6 KB · Views: 138
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
It seems to me (this may be unfair and I just may be missing the point! ... ) that Remmert has not clearly defined $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings ...

Can someone please give a first-principles definition of $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear and $$\mathbb{C}$$-linear mappings ... and some simple examples ...
If $V$ and $W$ are vector spaces over a field $\Bbb{F}$, then a map $f:V\to W$ is defined to be $\Bbb{F}$-linear if it satisfies the conditions \[(1)\text{ Additivity: }\ f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) \text{ for all }x,y\in V,\] \[(2)\text{ Scalar multiplication: }\ f(\lambda x) = \lambda f(x) \text{ for all }x\in V,\;\lambda\in\Bbb{F}.\]

If we identify the spaces $\Bbb{R}^2$ and $\Bbb{C}$ in the usual way by the correspondence $(x,y) \leftrightarrow x+iy$, then we can regard $\Bbb{C}$ as either a (two-dimensional) vector space over $\Bbb{R}$ or a (one-dimensional) space over $\Bbb{C}$. With that identification, we can ask whether a given a map $f:\Bbb{C} \to \Bbb{C}$ is $\Bbb{R}$-linear or $\Bbb{C}$-linear. In each case the conditions (1) and (2) must be satisfied.

The condition (1) does not explicitly mention the underlying field. So the map $f$ will be $\Bbb{R}$-additive if and only if it is $\Bbb{C}$-additive. But the scalar multiplication condition (2) is different in the two cases. In fact, the condition $f(\lambda z) = \lambda f(z)$ only has to be satisfied for real $\lambda$ for the map to be $\Bbb{R}$-linear. But it has to satisfy the stronger condition (namely for all complex $\lambda$) for it to be $\Bbb{C}$-linear.

The simplest concrete example to illustrate this is the complex conjugation map $f: x+iy\mapsto x-iy$. This is certainly additive. It is $\Bbb{R}$-linear, because \[f(\lambda(x+iy)) = f(\lambda x+i\lambda y) = \lambda x-i\lambda y = \lambda (x-i y) = \lambda f(x+iy)\] for all real $\lambda$.

But that map is not $\Bbb{C}$-linear, because if $\lambda = \mu+i\nu$ then \[f(\lambda(x+iy)) = f((\mu+i\nu)(x+iy)) = f((\mu x - \nu y) + i(\nu x + \mu y)) = (\mu x - \nu y) - i(\nu x + \mu y).\] But \[\lambda f(x+iy) = (\mu+i\nu)(x-iy) = (\mu x + \nu y) + (\nu x -\mu y),\] which is clearly different from $f(\lambda(x+iy))$ whenever $\nu\ne0$.
 
Opalg said:
If $V$ and $W$ are vector spaces over a field $\Bbb{F}$, then a map $f:V\to W$ is defined to be $\Bbb{F}$-linear if it satisfies the conditions \[(1)\text{ Additivity: }\ f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) \text{ for all }x,y\in V,\] \[(2)\text{ Scalar multiplication: }\ f(\lambda x) = \lambda f(x) \text{ for all }x\in V,\;\lambda\in\Bbb{F}.\]

If we identify the spaces $\Bbb{R}^2$ and $\Bbb{C}$ in the usual way by the correspondence $(x,y) \leftrightarrow x+iy$, then we can regard $\Bbb{C}$ as either a (two-dimensional) vector space over $\Bbb{R}$ or a (one-dimensional) space over $\Bbb{C}$. With that identification, we can ask whether a given a map $f:\Bbb{C} \to \Bbb{C}$ is $\Bbb{R}$-linear or $\Bbb{C}$-linear. In each case the conditions (1) and (2) must be satisfied.

The condition (1) does not explicitly mention the underlying field. So the map $f$ will be $\Bbb{R}$-additive if and only if it is $\Bbb{C}$-additive. But the scalar multiplication condition (2) is different in the two cases. In fact, the condition $f(\lambda z) = \lambda f(z)$ only has to be satisfied for real $\lambda$ for the map to be $\Bbb{R}$-linear. But it has to satisfy the stronger condition (namely for all complex $\lambda$) for it to be $\Bbb{C}$-linear.

The simplest concrete example to illustrate this is the complex conjugation map $f: x+iy\mapsto x-iy$. This is certainly additive. It is $\Bbb{R}$-linear, because \[f(\lambda(x+iy)) = f(\lambda x+i\lambda y) = \lambda x-i\lambda y = \lambda (x-i y) = \lambda f(x+iy)\] for all real $\lambda$.

But that map is not $\Bbb{C}$-linear, because if $\lambda = \mu+i\nu$ then \[f(\lambda(x+iy)) = f((\mu+i\nu)(x+iy)) = f((\mu x - \nu y) + i(\nu x + \mu y)) = (\mu x - \nu y) - i(\nu x + \mu y).\] But \[\lambda f(x+iy) = (\mu+i\nu)(x-iy) = (\mu x + \nu y) + (\nu x -\mu y),\] which is clearly different from $f(\lambda(x+iy))$ whenever $\nu\ne0$.
Hi Opalg,

Thanks so much for your post ... it was most helpful!

But ... just some clarifications ...

Are $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mappings of $$\mathbb{C}$$ into $$\mathbb{C}$$ restricted to the situation where $$\mathbb{C}$$ is regarded as a vector space of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ over $$\mathbb{R}$$ ... ... or can $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mappings of $$\mathbb{C}$$ into $$\mathbb{C}$$ be legitimately regarded as occurring in $$\mathbb{C}$$ regarded as a vector space of $$\mathbb{C}$$ over $$\mathbb{C}$$ ... ... ? (I am guessing that an $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mapping can occur in both ... )Just for the record ... ... my understanding of an $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mapping for $$\mathbb{C}$$ regarded as a vector space of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ over $$\mathbb{R}$$ is as follows:

... an $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mapping for $$\mathbb{C}$$ regarded as a vector space of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ over $$\mathbb{R}$$ is a function/map $$f : \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}^2$$ that satisfies the two conditions ...

(1) Additivity : $$f( \ (x,y) + (v,w) \ ) = f( \ (x,y) \ ) + f( \ (v,w) \ )$$

(2) Scalar Multiplication : $$f( \ \lambda (x,y) \ ) = \lambda f( \ (x,y) \ )$$Now ...for the conjugation map ... we consider ...

$$f : (x,y) \mapsto (x, -y)$$Now ... we have:

$$f( \ (x,y) + (v,w) \ ) = f( \ (x + v, y + w) \ ) = (x + v, -y - w) = (x,-y) + (v,-w) = f( \ (x,y) \ ) + f( \ (v,w) \ )$$

and

$$f( \ \lambda (x,y) \ ) = f( \ (\lambda x, \lambda y) \ ) = (\lambda x, - \lambda y) = \lambda (x, -y) = \lambda f( \ (x,y) \ ) $$
Is that correct?BUT ... given the above is a real vector space ...

... presumably we would not write $$\[f(\lambda(x+iy)) = f(\lambda x+i\lambda y) = \lambda x-i\lambda y = \lambda (x-i y) = \lambda f(x+iy)\]$$ (for all real $\lambda$) because we are essentially dealing with a real vector space of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ over $$\mathbb{R}$$?

Indeed ... should $$i $$ be in a real vector space of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ over $$\mathbb{R}$$ ...
Can you comment?

Peter
 
Peter said:
Are $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mappings of $$\mathbb{C}$$ into $$\mathbb{C}$$ restricted to the situation where $$\mathbb{C}$$ is regarded as a vector space of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ over $$\mathbb{R}$$ ... ... or can $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mappings of $$\mathbb{C}$$ into $$\mathbb{C}$$ be legitimately regarded as occurring in $$\mathbb{C}$$ regarded as a vector space of $$\mathbb{C}$$ over $$\mathbb{C}$$ ... ... ?

(I am guessing that an $$\mathbb{R}$$-linear mapping can occur in both ... )
Yes. In fact, any vector space over $\Bbb{C}$ can be regarded as a vector space over $\Bbb{R}$, simply by restricting scalar multiplication to real scalars.

Peter said:
Now ...for the conjugation map ... we consider ...

$$f : (x,y) \mapsto (x, -y)$$

Now ... we have:

$$f( \ (x,y) + (v,w) \ ) = f( \ (x + v, y + w) \ ) = (x + v, -y - w) = (x,-y) + (v,-w) = f( \ (x,y) \ ) + f( \ (v,w) \ )$$

and

$$f( \ \lambda (x,y) \ ) = f( \ (\lambda x, \lambda y) \ ) = (\lambda x, - \lambda y) = \lambda (x, -y) = \lambda f( \ (x,y) \ ) $$

Is that correct?
Yes.

Peter said:
BUT ... given the above is a real vector space ...

... presumably we would not write $$\[f(\lambda(x+iy)) = f(\lambda x+i\lambda y) = \lambda x-i\lambda y = \lambda (x-i y) = \lambda f(x+iy)\]$$ (for all real $\lambda$) because we are essentially dealing with a real vector space of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ over $$\mathbb{R}$$?

Indeed ... should $$i $$ be in a real vector space of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ over $$\mathbb{R}$$ ...
There is nothing wrong in considering $\Bbb{C}$ as a vector space over $\Bbb{R}$. it doesn't matter that the vectors are complex numbers, just so long as scalar multiplication is only done with real scalars.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K