Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am confused of the following:

Suppose that there is an linear transformation $T : V \rightarrow W$ that is invertible. To prove that $T$ is one-to-one and onto, the proof that I saw says the following:

Let $\mathbb{v}$ be in the kernel of $T$. Then, $T^{-1}(T(\mathbb{v})) = T^{-1}(\mathbb{0}) \rightarrow I(\mathbb{v}) =0$

I am not sure how one can reach the conclusion of $I(\mathbb{v}) =0$.

share|improve this question
    
Well, you have everything there. For $\mathbf{v} \in \ker(T)$, notice $T^{-1}(T(\mathbf{v}))=T^{-1}(0)=0$ as $T^{-1}$ is linear. But since $T^{-1} \circ T=I$, we have that, $I(\mathbf{v})=\mathbf{v}=0$. Hope this helps. –  user21436 Aug 28 '12 at 7:56
    
A proper proof should not use that $T$ is linear, since it is irrelevant for the property of being bijective. –  Marc van Leeuwen Aug 28 '12 at 9:54

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Suppose $T(v) = 0$. Then because $T$ is invertible we can apply $T^{-1}$ that is also a linear transformation to both sides to get that

$$T^{-1}T(v) = T^{-1}(0).$$

However the condition that $T$ having an inverse is exactly the same thing as saying that $T^{-1}T = I = T(T^{-1})$. In particular, the first part of this equality tell us that

$$T^{-1}T(v) = (T^{-1}T)(v) = I(v).$$

However I said earlier that $T^{-1}$ was linear so that $T^{-1}(0) = 0$. It follows that $I(v) = 0$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.