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.

There's s a kind of proof regularly used in linear algebra ( proving facts about Transformations, direct sums, basis, ... ) that i have definitely agreed with but still couldn't connect my intuitive and logic to my formal proof writing.
After avoiding to fully understand it for long enough i decided trying to erradicate all my minor doubts on it.

Context :
Given a vector space V, suppose we have U1,U2,...,Um, all of subspaces of V such that their direct sum equals V.
By saying that V = U1 directsum U2 directsum ... Um directsum we know two things :

First: V = U1 + U2 + ... + Um = { u1 + u2 + .... + um : for all u1 in U1, u2 in U2, ..., um in Um }

Second: Every element in V can be obtained by a unique combination of uj, each one contained in Uj for 1 <= j <= m

What i certainly understand :

I know intuitively that considering V = U1 directsum U2 directsum ... directsum Um, then the vector 0 in V can only be obtained by summing the elements 0 in U1,U2,...,Um ( or else it wouldn`t be a direct sum ).

Here's the proof i'm having a problem with :

I can formally ( but not intuitively and logically ) go step by step to show that previous fact implies that EVERY element from V can only be obtained by taking a unique combination of uj, each one contained in Uj for 1 <= j <= m :

Step 1 -
If V = U1 directsum U2 directsum ... directsum Um, then for any element x in V : x = u1 + u2 + ... + um

Step 2 -
Suppose we have another combination for x : y = v1 + v2 + ... + vm

Step 3 -
Then subtracting both equations, leads to : 0 = (u1 -v1) + (u2 -v2) + .... + (um - vm)

Step 4 -
Which leads to the fact that u1=v1 , u2=v2 , ... , um=vm ( because we need a trivial combination to yield the 0 vector in V )

Step 5 -
Hence proving that every element in V can only be obtained by a unique combination of elements in each subspace Uj.

My concern is that i can`t really connect the fact i intuitevily know ( about the requirement of the trivial combination ) with the fact that is implied by it.

I think i have two problems :
1 - I can't fully understand what is going on in the transition from step 1 to step 2 ( Are we starting a contradiction method ? ).i can't understand the connection from step 1 to step 2 with the results achieved in step 4.Does step 4 contradict what we assumed in step 2 ?
2 - I can't automatically believe or know ( witouth running the proof steps in my head ) that the trivial combination for the vector 0 in V, implies unique combination for any element in V.

It's a bit hard to ask something specific in the logical steps of this proof because i can`t fully and intuitively understand it .

I hope i conveyed a not so confusing message.

share|improve this question
    
don't sure it is useful, but my suggest is to think that $U_j$'s are pairwise disjoint, a part for the zero-vector –  Federica Maggioni Apr 25 '13 at 17:15

1 Answer 1

We can actually consider this basic approach as a direct proof, instead. We supposed that $$u_1+\cdots+ u_m=v_1+\cdots+v_m$$ where $u_j,v_j\in U_j$ for $1\le j\le m$. In order to show that our representations are unique, it suffices to show that these two arbitrary representations are in fact the same. In particular, we need to show that $$u_j=v_j$$ for each $1\le j\le m$. Equivalently, we're given that $$0=(u_1-v_1)+\cdots+(u_m-v_m)$$ and must prove that $$0=u_j-v_j$$ for each $1\le j\le m.$ Since each $U_j$ is a subspace of $V$ and $u_j,v_j\in U_j$, then $u_j-v_j\in U_j$. Thus, this representation of the zero vector is the trivial one, so each $u_j-v_j=0,$ as desired.


There is a general principle behind these types of proofs (aside from the fact that for elements $x,y$ of a vector space $V$ we have $x=y$ if and only if $0=x-y$). Suppose that $V=U_1+\cdots+U_m$ for some subspaces $U_j$ of $V$, let $W:=U_1\times\cdots\times U_m$ and consider the function $f:W\to V$ given by $$f(u_1,\dots,u_m)=u_1+\cdots+u_m.$$ Each $U_j$ is a vector space over the same field as $V$, so $W$ is, too (with termwise addition and scalar multiplication). We can readily see that $f$ is a linear transformation, and so saying "the elements of $U$ have unique representations as...$U_j$ for $1\le j\le m$" is equivalent to saying "$f$ is a vector space isomorphism." Since $U_1+\cdots+U_m=V$, then $f$ maps $W$ onto $V$ (so every vector of $V$ has a representation). Ultimately, then, the given proof shows that if the kernel of $f$ is trivial (contains only the zero vector), then $f$ is one-to-one (so that the representations are unique).

This is true in general, though. Let $X,Y$ be vector spaces over some field and let $L:X\to Y$ be any linear transformation. Then $L$ is one-to-one if and only if the kernel of $L$ is trivial. For any $y\in Y$, we call $$L^{-1}(y):=\{x\in X:L(x)=y\}$$ the fiber of $y$ (under $L$). Note that the fibers are disjoint from each other, and that every element of $X$ lies in exactly one fiber (since $L$ is a function). Note moreover that $L$ is one-to-one if and only if each fiber contains no more than one element (if $L$ isn't onto, then some will be empty). The kernel of $L$ is simply the fiber of $Y$'s zero vector, so it's clear that the kernel will be trivial if $L$ is one-to-one. What about the converse, though? Why is it that if we know the kernel of $L$ is trivial, then we know that all the fibers have at most one element?

Well, let's take any $y\in Y$ such that $L^{-1}(y)\ne\emptyset$. Fix $x\in L^{-1}(y).$ For any $z$ in the kernel of $L$, we have $$L(x+z)=L(x)+L(z)=y+0=y.$$ Thus, $x+L^{-1}(0)\subseteq L^{-1}(y)$, where for subsets $Z$ of $X$ we have $$x+Z:=\{x+z:z\in Z\}.$$ On the other hand, if $x'\in L^{-1}(y)$, then putting $z=-x+x'$, we have $x'=x+z$ and $$L(z)=L(-x)+L(x')=-L(x)+L(x')=-y+y=0,$$ so $x'\in x+L^{-1}(0)$. Since this holds for all $x'\in L^{-1}(y)$, then $x+L^{-1}(0)\supseteq L^{-1}(y)$, whence $x+L^{-1}(0)=L^{-1}(y).$ Put another way, all the non-empty fibers are simply translations of the kernel of $L$. That's why a given fiber can have no more points in it than the kernel of $L$, which is why triviality of the kernel of $L$ means that $L$ is one-to-one, which is why uniqueness of all representations follows from uniqueness of the representation of zero.

It actually follows from the above reasoning that all non-empty fibers under $L$ are translations of each other (since they're all translations of the kernel of $L$), so instead of assuming that the kernel was trivial, we could instead have assumed that some non-empty fiber had only one point. The thing that's special about the kernel of $L$ is that, unlike the other fibers under $L$, it is a vector subspace of $X$, so it has nice properties like closure under addition and scalar multiplication.

share|improve this answer
    
Nice answear, Cameron.May i ask you a linear algebra book recommendation ? I'm not sure i know what a fiber is.Thanks –  nerdy Apr 25 '13 at 23:39
    
Also, do you know how could one think intuitevily (without doing T(0) = 0 // T(x-y) = 0 with x=y // T(x) = T(y) with x=y) why trivial kernel of a transformation implies one-to-one transformation? –  nerdy Apr 25 '13 at 23:51
    
Let me give you a few examples to illustrate what a fiber is. In general, if $X,Y$ are sets and $f:X\to Y$ is a function, then for $y\in Y$, the fiber of $y$ under $f$ is just the set of things in $X$ that $f$ sends to $y$. Consider the function $f:\Bbb R^2\to\Bbb R$ given by $f(x,y)=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}.$ The fibers of negative numbers are empty; the fiber of zero is the origin; and for positive $r,$ the fiber of $r$ is the circle about the origin of radius $r.$ –  Cameron Buie Apr 26 '13 at 0:32
    
Consider $g:\Bbb R^2\to\Bbb R$ given by $g(x,y)=xy$. For $t\neq 0$, the fiber of $t$ is the curve $y=t/x$, and the fiber of zero is the axes. Now, those aren't linear transformations, so the fibers aren't simply translations of each other. On the other hand, consider the function $h:\Bbb R^2\to\Bbb R$ given by $h(x,y)=y-2x$. The fibers under $h$ are all the lines in the plane with slope $2$ (the fiber of $b$ is the line with slope $2$ and $y$-intercept $b$). –  Cameron Buie Apr 26 '13 at 0:44
    
The fact that non-empty fibers of a linear transformation are translations of each other is what allows us to conclude that a linear transformation is one-to-one if and only if its kernel is trivial. I'll think on some good linear algebra texts. –  Cameron Buie Apr 26 '13 at 0:51

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.