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.

Sorry if this is somewhat a duplicate. The answers I see deal with functions in general rather than linear maps.

Let $T$ be a linear map from $U$ to $V$.
I understand that by definition a linear map is injective if every element in the range gets mapped there by a unique vector from the domain. This is easy to show by choosing two vectors $u$ and $v$ in $U$, and showing that if $T(u)=T(v)$, then $u=v$.

But for a surjective linear map, it does not seem like there is something simple like this we can do? We have to show that range$(T)=V$. How is this done?

EDIT: As a concrete example, suppose we have $T\in L(F^\infty \rightarrow F^\infty)$ defined by $T(x_1,x_2,x_3,\dots) = (x_2,x_3, \dots)$. How can we show this is surjective? Is it enough to:

Suppose $w\in W$, where $w=(w_1, w_2, \dots)$. Then let $u=(a, w_1, w_2)$ for some $a\in F$. And that's all we need?

share|improve this question
1  
When you say, "I understand that by definition a linear map is surjective", the word "surjective" should be replaced by "injective". –  Zev Chonoles Apr 10 '11 at 0:59
    
Thanks I fixed that. –  fdart17 Apr 10 '11 at 1:03
1  
I have the same feeling as yours: often, proving that a linear map is injective is easier than proving it is surjective. Of course we are talking about infinite-dimensional vector spaces, otherwise the two are equivalent. –  Giuseppe Negro Apr 10 '11 at 1:12
1  
Oh and regards your edit: OK, you have proven that $T$ is surjective. –  Giuseppe Negro Apr 10 '11 at 1:13

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If you're dealing with finite-dimensional spaces, the key is relation:

$$\tag{1} \dim U = \dim \mbox{im} T +\dim \ker T \; .$$

If you know how to evaluate $\dim \ker T$, then you can easily compare $\dim V$ with $\dim \mbox{im} T=\dim U-\dim \ker T$ and your map will be surjective iff $\dim V =\dim \mbox{im} T$.

I want to remark also a straightforward consequence of (1). If $U$ and $V$ are both finite-dimensional and they both have the same dimension, then there is equivalence between being injective and being surjective for linear maps, i.e. a linear map $T:U\to V$ is injective iff it is surjective.

On the other hand, AFAIK, when you deal with infinite-dimensional spaces surjectivity proofs cannot be shortened by using tricks: in general, one has to show that for each $v\in V$ there exists $u\in U$ s.t. $v=Tu$.

share|improve this answer
    
$im$ means range correct? –  fdart17 Apr 10 '11 at 4:35
    
@Cplayer: Correct. –  Pacciu Apr 10 '11 at 9:53
1  
(@TheChaz: From time to time I like to read some question and some (genuinely brilliant) answers... But it seems I can't stand the Q/A format of Math.SE. I don't want to be rude, but why you're asking?) –  Pacciu Oct 25 '11 at 22:10
    
@The Chaz: I see. I'm much more active on www.matematicamente.it/forum, an Italian Math forum (I have +10K posts there, under a different nickname, and I'm one of the moderators). That forum also has a section called English Corner, where users post exercises in order to practice writing in English... Wanna join us? ;-) –  Pacciu Dec 9 '11 at 2:35
    
All I need is another math forum... But hey, I'm inebriated; why not?!? –  The Chaz 2.0 Dec 9 '11 at 4:22

For surjectivity, you need to show that for every $v \in V$ there exists a $u \in U$ such that $T(u) = v$.

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.