MHB Show that a Parametric Equation Maps To Another Line By Linear Transformation.

bwpbruce
Messages
60
Reaction score
1
$\textbf{Problem}$
Given $\textbf{v} \ne \textbf{0}$ and $\textbf{p}$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, the line through $\textbf{p}$ in the direction of $\textbf{v}$ is given by $\textbf{x} = \textbf{p} + t\textbf{v}$. Show that linear transformation $T: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ maps this line onto another line or onto a single point.

$\textbf{My Solution}$:
$\textbf{x} = \textbf{p} + t\textbf{v}$

By Linear Transformation Property:
$T(\textbf{x}) =T(\textbf{p} + t\textbf{v})$
$T(\textbf{x}) =T\textbf{p} + t(T\textbf{v})$

Let $T(\textbf{x}) = \textbf{y}, T\textbf{p} = \textbf{q}, T\textbf{v} = \textbf{w}$
Then $\textbf{y} = \textbf{q} + t\textbf{w}$ is another parametric equation and $\textbf{y}$ is the other line that $\textbf{x}$ maps to except in the case where $\textbf{w} = \textbf{0}$. Then $\textbf{y} = \textbf{q}$

Result:
$\textbf{y} = \textbf{q} + t\textbf{w}$

or

$\textbf{y} = \textbf{q}$

Conclusion:
$\textbf{x} \mapsto \textbf{y}$ by $T$.

Check my solution please?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

It's almost correct, but $y$ doesn't need to be a line, read again the statement and fill the degenrate case.
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi,

It's almost correct, but $y$ doesn't need to be a line, read again the statement and fill the degenrate case.

Is that better?
 
Yes, now is completely correct :D
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Back
Top