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 been reviewing criteria for bijectivity of linear mappings because I am going to have to be able to proof similar results on an upcoming exam and use various theorems to deduce if a linear transformation is one-one, onto, ect. One theorem I am not so sure how to prove is below. I was wondering if it came up in a standard textbook on linear algebra because it was presented without proof in a set of lecture notes I am using.

Let $V,W$ be vector spaces over some field $F$ and suppose $f$ is a linear transformation between these spaces.

How do we show $f:V\rightarrow W $ is one to one if and only $dim(V) \leq dim(W)$ and if A is the matrix corresponding to the linear transformation f(with respect to the standard basis of V and W) then there exists no scalar $c \neq 0$ such that the products by $c$ of all minors of order $dim(V)$ of $A$ are zero.

share|improve this question
2  
This holds even when $k$ is a commutative ring with unity: artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=349&t=124137 –  darij grinberg Nov 8 '11 at 1:13

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

A linear mapping $f$ is one-to-one, iff $\ker f=0$. The rank-nullity theorem tells you that $$\dim \ker f=0 \Leftrightarrow \dim\; \mathrm{im}\; f= \dim V.$$ Therefore we know that $f$ is one-to-one, iff the matrix $A$ has rank $\dim V$. More specifically (if the usual notation is adopted, and the images of the basis vectors are columns of $A$) we know that this happens, iff the column space of $A$ has the same dimension as the space $V$, iff the row space of $A$ has the same dimension as $V$.

The row space has of $A$ always has a basis consisting of rows of $A$. Remember that each row of $A$ has $\dim V$ components. For there to be $\dim V$ linearly independent rows in $A$:

A) The matrix $A$ must have at least $\dim V$ rows. IOW $\dim W\ge \dim V$.

B) The minor gotten by using that set of rows has to be non-zero.

Clearly conditions $A$ and $B$ imply that the row space of $A$ has dimension $\dim V$, so we can go the chain backwards also.

I still don't get what's the deal with scalar multiples of minors. Are you sure that this is about vector spaces over fields?

share|improve this answer
    
Does your hint apply to both directions of the proof or just one side? In particular I do not see how the rank nullity theorem imply the condition about the minors. –  user7980 Nov 6 '11 at 23:37
1  
@user7980: What's the relation between the minors and the rank of the matrix? –  Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 7 '11 at 5:19
    
I am not aware of a theorem relating minors to matrix rank could you please elaborate on what fact you are talking about and if this is just a consequence of rank nullify –  user7980 Nov 7 '11 at 7:39
1  
It is a rather basic result in linear algebra that the rank of the matrix equals the size of its largest non-vanishing minor. Never heard of it? –  Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 7 '11 at 7:57
1  
An argument here: by rank-nullity $\ker f=0\Leftrightarrow \dim f(V)= \dim V$, so $rank\;A=\dim V$. If you (or your book) sets things up in the way that the images of basis vectors of $V$ are listed as columns of $A$, then the columns must be linearly independent. Therefore there are $\dim V$ linearly independent rows. Therefore $\dim W\ge\dim V$ and those rows give a non-vanishing minor. –  Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 7 '11 at 8:06

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.