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 have a pretty simple question that confused me:

V is a vector space of a finite dimension. $T: V \to V$ is a linear transformation. The information that's been given in question: $\operatorname{Im} T = \ker T$

I want to know if what I'm doing is right: I took only for exmaple: $\dim \ker T = \dim \operatorname{Im} T = 2$

I take $D = \{v_1,v_2\}$ as some basis for $\ker T$ and $\operatorname{Im} T$

then I add vectors and let's say $B = \{v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4\}$ is basis of $V$, and I demand that $v_3$ and $v_4$ follow these requirements: $T(v_3) = v_1$, $T(v_4) = v_2$. (I did this for a reason, I didn't write here the whole question) But I have to prove that this is basis of $V$, linearly independent and spanning $V$.

So I tried to prove that it is linearly independent: I assume : $a_1v_1 + a_2v_2 + a_3v_3 + a_4v_4 = 0$ Then I applied $T$ on it : $T(a_1v_1 + a_2v_2 + a_3v_3 + a_4v_4) = 0$

$a1 * T(v1) + a2* T(v2) + a3*T(v3) + a4* T (v4) = 0$.

$v_1$ and $v_2$ are from $\ker T$ so $T(v_1) = 0$ and $T(v_2) = 0$,

so I get that there is a linear dependence, but I don't know where is the dependence: is the action that I did means that $\{v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4\}$ are linearly dependent or it means ONLY that $T(v_1)$, $T(v_2)$, $T(v_3)$, $T(v_4)$ are dependent?

Thank you

share|improve this question
    
The information was: Im T = Ker T , so I can understand that they are the same subspace as I see it –  CnR Jul 5 '13 at 14:13
    
Ah, apologies, I should have read closer. It does say that $\ker(T)=\mathrm{im}(T)$. –  Zev Chonoles Jul 5 '13 at 14:19

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

Since $\dim\mathop{\rm Ker} T > 0$, the operator $T$ is singular, hence it reduces the dimension of the space (because $\dim\mathop{\rm Im} T = n - \dim\mathop{\rm Ker} T < n$), meaning it maps any base to a linearly dependent set (of vectors that span its image).

In other words, $T(B)$ is a set of $4$ linearly dependent vectors, because $T(B) \subseteq \mathop{\rm Im} T$, which is a 2-dimensional space (so it cannot have more than 2 linearly independant vectors).

share|improve this answer
    
Okay I understand your explanation, thank you. Can you answer me on the last question that I wrote about the dependence? I want to be sure that the way I did it is correct generally.. if I assume : a1v1+a2v2+a3v3+a4v4=0 and apply T on it and get that the ai-s are all 0 it means that only the T(v) are dependent or we can get by it that the vi -s are dependent? –  CnR Jul 5 '13 at 15:38
    
No, this is not correct. If you have an expression of a form $\sum_{k=1}^n \alpha_k v_k = 0$ that is possible only when all $\alpha_k = 0$, that means that $v_k$ are independent. Same goes for vectors $T(v_k)$, i.e., if $\sum_{k=1}^n \alpha_k T(v_k) = 0$ is possible only when all $\alpha_k = 0$, then all $T(v_k)$ are independent. But, as I explained, in your case this is impossible (due to the dimension of $\mathop{\rm Im}T$). On the other hand, if $\sum_{k=1}^n \alpha_k v_k = 0$ for some $\alpha_k$ that are not all equal to zero, vectors are dependent (same for $T(v_l)$ instead of $v_l$). –  Vedran Šego Jul 5 '13 at 15:48
    
In your example, $a_1T(v_1)+a_2T(v_2)+a_3T(v_3)+a_4T(v_4)=0$ doesn't yield $a_k = 0$. It is easy to show that $T(v_1) = T(v_2) = 0$ (because $v_1$ and $v_2$ span image ($T(v_3) = v_1$ and $T(v_4) = v_2$) and the image is same as kernel). So, your equation will be true for any $a_1$ and $a_2$. –  Vedran Šego Jul 5 '13 at 15:59
    
I'm sorry, I had a mistake. I meant to ask: if I assume : a1v1+a2v2+a3v3+a4v4=0 and apply T on it and find out that there are ai-s that are not 0 so the whole expression is 0 [dependent], does it mean that only the T(v) are dependent or we can get by it that the vi -s are dependent? –  CnR Jul 5 '13 at 19:04
    
Only $T(v_k)$ are dependent. To make it easier to see this, take $T \equiv 0$, then any set of vectors $\{v_k\}$, be it dependent or independent, will be mapped to zero (which is dependent by definition). A bit more complex example, where ${\rm Ker}\ T = {\rm Im}\ T$, you can take (switch to matrix notation; it's easier):$$T = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & {\rm I} \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix},$$where $\rm I$ denotes identity matrix of order $n/2$. Now, see what happens with the vectors of the canonical base $e_k = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & \dots & 0 & 1 & 0 & \dots & 0 \end{bmatrix}^T$ ($1$ is in $k$-th position). –  Vedran Šego Jul 5 '13 at 20:21

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.