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.

Problem 4.3.32 in Linear Algebra, Lay:

Let $V$ and $W$ be vector spaces, let $T:V\to W$ be a linear transformation, and let $\{\mathbf{v}_1, \dots , \mathbf{v}_p \}$ be a subset of $V$.

Suppose that $T$ is a one-to-one transformation [...]. Show that if the set of images $\{T(\mathbf{v}_1), \dots ,T(\mathbf{v}_p)\}$ is linearly dependent, then $\{\mathbf{v}_1, \dots , \mathbf{v}_p \}$ is linearly dependent. This fact shows that a one-to-one linear transformation maps a linearly independent set onto a linearly independent set.

All I can think of doing:

If $\{T(\mathbf{v}_1), \dots ,T(\mathbf{v}_p)\}$ is linearly dependent, then there exist weights $c_1, \dots, c_p$, not all zero, so that $$c_1 T(\mathbf{v}_1) + \cdots + c_p T(\mathbf{v}_p) = \mathbf{0}$$ Since $T$ is linear: $$c_1 T(\mathbf{v}_1) + \cdots + c_p T(\mathbf{v}_p) = T(c_1\mathbf{v}_1) + \cdots + T(c_p \mathbf{v}_p)=T(c_1 \mathbf{v}_1 +\cdots + c_p \mathbf{v}_p)=\mathbf{0}$$ So the set $\{\mathbf{v}_1, \dots , \mathbf{v}_p \}$ must be linearly dependent.

Am I missing something? And why must $T$ be on-to-one for this to be true? An example showing that it is not true if $T$ is not one-to-one would be great!

share|improve this question
    
there must be condition such that knerlity of t contain only zero element . –  user62571 Feb 16 '13 at 18:30
    
Any clue what that might be? Otherwise this answer doesn't help a bit... –  vonbrand Feb 16 '13 at 19:09
    
@ravi: The condition that a linear transformation be one-to-one (i.e., injective) is equivalent to saying that its kernel consists only of the zero element. –  Zev Chonoles Feb 16 '13 at 19:11
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

One last step you need to mention in your argument (and this is where the assumption that $T$ is one-to-one is necessary): why does $T(c_1 \mathbf{v}_1 +\cdots + c_p \mathbf{v}_p)=\mathbf{0}$ imply that $c_1 \mathbf{v}_1 +\cdots + c_p \mathbf{v}_p=\mathbf{0}$?

Here is a counterexample where $T$ is not one-to-one: let $V=\mathbb{R}^2$ and $W=\mathbb{R}$, and $\mathbf{v}_1=(1,2)$ and $\mathbf{v}_2=(2,1)$. Let $T:\mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}$ be the linear transformation $T(a,b)=a$. Then $T(\mathbf{v_1})=1$ and $T(\mathbf{v}_2)=2$ are linearly dependent in $\mathbb{R}$, because (for example) $$2T(\mathbf{v_1})+(-1)T(\mathbf{v}_2)=2-2=0,$$ but even though $$2T(\mathbf{v_1})+(-1)T(\mathbf{v}_2)=T(2\mathbf{v}_1-\mathbf{v}_2)=0\in\mathbb{R}$$ we still have that $2\mathbf{v}_1-\mathbf{v}_2=(2,4)-(2,1)=(0,3)\neq\mathbf{0}\in\mathbb{R}^2$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for the counterexample! –  Jodles Oct 8 '11 at 15:43
add comment

In your last step you implicitly used a property that $T(v) = 0 $ implies $v=0$, which is true only if you know that $T$ is injective.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.