I am able to prove the above-asked using the fact that a linear map preserves linear dependence. I also vaguely suspect a connection from group theory (homomorphisms?). But I'm having trouble getting an intuition for that fact that a linear transformation cannot increase the dimension of a vector space. Help?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
My intuition would be this: linear maps preserve lines (that's the intuition behind them, anyway). If they are degenerate, the lines might collapse to points, but points which are colinear remain such after the transformation.
Dimension of a space is, intuitively, the number of independent lines you can draw in a space. Because linear transformation preserves not just lines, but also linear subspaces of higher dimensions (so coplanar points remain coplanar etc.), it can't "split" a line into more of them, even if it can join some of them, and it can't turn lines which weren't independent into ones which are (because that would be "splitting" some higher-dimensional subspace; it's a little circular, but we're talking about the intuition here), so the dimension can't go up.
This is because linear transformations are closed in a vector space. There may be smaller subspaces inside, but there is no way to go into a larger one.
One possible intuition could be that, say, a 3-dimensional space contains "many more" points that a 2-dimensional one does, so there are not enough points in $K^2$ to hit every point in $K^3$.
Strictly speaking this is of course rubbish -- when the scalar field $K$ is infinite we can prove that the cardinalities of $K$, $K^2$, $K^3$, etc. are all the same. But the requirement that the map must be linear forces it to be "well-behaved" enough to respect the naive intuition about the sizes of sets anyway.
(The argument does work when $K$ is a finite field, however).