Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If we are given some linearly dependent vectors, would the T of those vectors necessarily be dependent (given a transformation from $R^n$ to $R^p$)?

And if we are given some linearly independent vectors, would T of those vectors necessarily be independent (given a transformation from $R^n$ to $R^p$)?

The answers are presumably no and no, but I am struggling to figure out why. Thanks!

share|cite|improve this question
The only set whose linear independence is preserved under all linear transformations is the empty set. – Jonas Meyer Jan 24 '11 at 2:18
up vote 12 down vote accepted

If a set of vectors is dependent, there is a non-trivial combination of some of them that equals 0: $$a_1v_1+\dots+a_n v_n=0,$$ where not all the scalars $a_i$ are $0$. Linearity of $T$ should give you at once that the $Tv_i$ are also linearly dependent (as witnessed by the same $a_i$).

Linear independence, on the other hand, does not need to be preserved. For example, consider the linear transformation that maps all the vectors to 0.

Now, under some additional conditions, a linear transformation may preserve independence. For example, suppose that $T$ is injective (i.e., the only solution to $Tv=0$ is $v=0$). Then $T$ preserves linear independence: Suppose that $Tv_1,\dots,Tv_n$ are dependent, so there are scalars $b_1,\dots,b_n$, not all zero, such that $$b_1Tv_1+\dots+b_nTv_n=0.$$ By linearity, you get $T(b_1v_1+\dots+b_nv_n)=0$ and, if $T$ is injective, then in fact $b_1v_1+\dots+b_nv_n=0$, so the $v_i$ are dependent. (Or, if you prefer: If the $v_i$ are independent, and we have $b_1Tv_1+\dots+b_nTv_n=0$, then as above we get $b_1v_1+\dots+b_nv_n=0$, and independence gives us that $b_1=\dots=b_n=0$, so the $Tv_i$ are independent.)

Injectivity of $T$ is the only way to ensure that any independent set is mapped to an independent set. However, even if $T$ is not injective, there may be some independent sets whose independence is preserved. For example, consider the linear transformation $T:{\mathbb R}^3\to{\mathbb R}^2$ given by $T(x,y,z)=(x,y)$.

Then $T$ maps both $(1,0,0)$ and $(1,0,1)$ to $(1,0)$. The original vectors are independent, the resulting vectors obviously are not (they coincide!). But, on the other hand, $T$ preserves the linear independence of any two (independent) vectors whose last coordinate is 0.

share|cite|improve this answer

You want to be a bit careful with the statements; the main difficulty lies in how you deal with collections of sets that include repetitions.

Most of the time, when we think about vectors and vector spaces, a list of vectors that includes repetitions is considered to be linearly dependent, even though as a set it may technically not be. For example, in $\mathbb{R}^2$, the list $\mathbf{v}_1=(1,0)$, $\mathbf{v}_2=(1,0)$ is considered linearly dependent, because $\mathbf{v}_1 - \mathbf{v}_2 = \mathbf{0}$. But as sets, $\{\mathbf{v}_1,\mathbf{v}_2\} = \{(1,0)\} = S$, you have that $S$ is linearly independent (it contains a single element and the element is nonzero).

If you are considering lists, and repetitions are allowed (and make a list linearly dependent), then Andres's answer is completely correct. If you are considering sets, and repetitions are an issue, then the problem is much more difficult. I suspect this is not the case, since it is almost never the case; but you might want to double check (and try to figure how you can have a linearly dependent set map to a set of vectors that is linearly independent when considered as a set, where repetitions are ignored).

share|cite|improve this answer

Just to add to Arturo Magidin's answer, if you are considering sets of vectors rather than lists, then both statements are false:

Consider $T:\mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}, \: T(x,y) = x+y,$ and sets $A = \{(2,0),(0,2),(1,1)\}$ and $B = \{(1,-1)\}$. Then $A$ is linearly dependent, but $T(A) = \{2\}$ is linearly independent; and $B$ is linearly independent, but $T(B) = \{0\}$ is linearly dependent.

share|cite|improve this answer

Suppose $v_1,\cdots v_n$ are linearly independent and T is a linear transformation. Suppose ker(T) only intersects linear span $W$ of $v_1, \cdots v_n$ only at $\{0\}$. Then T preserves the linear independence of $v_1, \cdots v_n$.

This condition is necessary and sufficient.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.