What is the Relationship Between the Image and Kernel of T and T^n?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Image Kernel
Chen
Messages
976
Reaction score
1
Hi,

What's the relationship between the image and kernel of T and the image and kernel of Tn? I think we saw in class something along the lines of:

Ker(T) \subseteq Ker(T^2)
Im(T) \supseteq Im(T^2)

My intuition is that this is also correct for any natural n, but is it true and if so how do you prove it, by induction?

Thanks,
Chen
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming that T is a linear map from some vector space V to itself... \ker{T} \subseteq \ker{T^n} (where n is any natural number) is easy to prove. It's obvious for n = 1.

Suppose it's true for n = k. If x \in \ker{T}, then x \in \ker{T^k}, by the induction hypothesis. But then T^{k+1}(x) = T(T^{k}(x)) = T(0) = 0 (by the linearity of T), so that x \in \ker{T^{k+1}}.

I think the thing about Im(T) could be done without induction.
 
Last edited:
Let me clear the cobwebs from out my skull...
Let T be a linear map from V to V'.

A_1=Ker(T)={v in V : Tv=0}.

A_2=Ker(T^2)={v in V : TTv=0}.

Note that T0=0 for all linear maps T. Here, the first 0 is in V and the second 0 is in V'.

Then A_1 is a subset of A_2 because:
v in A_1 implies
Tv=0 implies
TTv=T0=0
implies v in A_2.

I don't think you really need induction if you can get away with saying that (T^n)0=0. I suppose that technically you do need induction if it's not acceptable as being obvious: T0=0, so done when n=1. Then assuming (T^(n-1))0=0, we can apply T to both sides to get (T^n)0=T0=0. Done.

Then if you let A_n=Ker(T^n), go through the above proof to show that A_(n-1) is a subset of A_n (change 1 to n-1 and 2 to n).

Then you have the following result:
A_1 is a subset of A_2 is a subset of ... is a subset of A_n.

The image I'll work out if no one else does after I have a cigarrette...
 
Note that for a linear operator T on a vector space V, we have

Im(T^2) = T(T(V)) = T(Im(T))

whereas Im(T) = T(V). Clearly, since Im(T) \subseteq V, T(Im(T)) \subseteq T(V) follows immediately. For any n, we can compare Im(T^n) with Im(T^{n+1}).

Im(T^{n+1}) = T^{n+1}(V) = T^n(T(V)) = T^n(Im(T))

whereas Im(T^n) = T^n(V). Again, since Im(T) \subseteq V, it follows immediately that T^n(Im(T)) \subseteq T^n(V), giving Im(T^{n+1}) \subseteq Im(T^n). This gives:

Im(T) \subseteq Im(T^2) \subseteq \dots \subseteq Im(T^n) \subseteq \dots

which is what you wanted, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
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...
##\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...
Back
Top