21
$\begingroup$

I'm reading Hoffman and Kunze's linear algebra book and on page 73 in the exercise 7, they ask to verify this function

$$T(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(x_1-x_2+2x_3,2x_1+x_2,-x_1-2x_2+2x_3)$$ is a linear transformation.

This exercise is really simple, but a little bit tedious. We have to define arbitrary $u=(x_u,y_u,z_u)$ and $v=(x_v,y_v,z_v)$ elements of $F^3$ and show $T(u+v)=T(u)+T(v)$ and $T(ku)=kT(u)$ for $k\in F$. (we can see $F$ as $\mathbb R$ or $\mathbb C$)

Is there a way more elegant to prove this function is linear?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think there is. $\endgroup$ – Fimpellizieri Nov 20 '16 at 7:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's not all that tedious, just a routine calculation. It shouldn't take all that long. $\endgroup$ – Aweygan Nov 20 '16 at 7:36
  • $\begingroup$ This ain't tedious. $\endgroup$ – copper.hat Nov 20 '16 at 8:40
  • 44
    $\begingroup$ Don't bother finding a slick way to solve this type of problems. Once you have done one or two of them you're supposed to be able to recognize immediately that "of course this is a linear transformation", without even pausing to construct a proof -- and then you'll never be expected to prove such a thing again, unless you go into teaching (or answering-questions-on-MSE). $\endgroup$ – Henning Makholm Nov 20 '16 at 9:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @HenningMakholm I know that, I'm looking for shorter solutions to show to my students. $\endgroup$ – user42912 Nov 20 '16 at 10:08
58
$\begingroup$

You can observe that the function is composed out of smaller linear functions. You know that $f(x) = x$ is linear and so is $f(x,y,z)=x$. Also that the sum of linear functions $f+g$ is linear, as well as a scalar multiplier $2f$. Finally, for linear $f,g,h$, the function $x \mapsto (f(x), g(x), h(x))$ is also linear.

When you know all of the above, you can just say that $F$ is made out of these linearity preserving compositions and a few obviously linear functions. That should be a good enough proof.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ +1, nice! Alternatively add the last missing component that is function composition and strike out "good enough". $\endgroup$ – The Vee Nov 20 '16 at 10:39
24
$\begingroup$

Perhaps the easiest way is to check the function acts as a matrix, and in this case (and in many more) we can do that easily:

$$T(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(x_1-x_2+2x_3,2x_1+x_2,-x_1-2x_2+2x_3)=\begin{pmatrix}1&-1&2\\2&1&0\\-1&-2&2\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}x_1\\x_2\\x_3\end{pmatrix}$$

Observe that I simply took each coordinate in the image and "split" it in its components $\;x_1,x_2,x_3\;$ .

You can also try to prove the little more involved:

Lemma: let $\;T:\Bbb F^n\to\Bbb F^m\;,\;\;\;\Bbb F\;$ a field, be a function given componentwise:

$$T\begin{pmatrix}x_1\\x_2\\\ldots\\x_n\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}T_1(x_1,...,x_n)\\T_2(x_1,...,x_n)\\\ldots\\T(x_1,...,x_n)\end{pmatrix}\;,\;\;\;\text{with}\;\;T_i:\Bbb F^n\to\Bbb F$$. Then $\;T\;$ is a linear map iff for all $\;i=1,...,n\;$ , the map $\;T_i\;$ is a homogeneous polynomial in $\;x_1,...,x_n\;$ of degree $\;1\;$ .

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. Being very rigorous, $T(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ should be an element of $F^3$ not an element of the space of the columns $3\times 1$. $\endgroup$ – user42912 Nov 20 '16 at 8:09
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @user42912 Being rigorous it is exactly (i.e., natural isomorphism) the same in these cases, and it really doesn't matter intrinsically whether you denote the vectors of $\;\Bbb F^{n}\;$ as column or row vectors. It is a matter of convention in any book. $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Nov 20 '16 at 8:16
13
$\begingroup$

You can write the above as:

$T(x_1,x_2,x_3)=x_1(1,2,-1)+x_2(-1,1,-2)+x_3(2,0,2)=\alpha x_1+\beta x_2+\gamma x_3$

where $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are fixed.

then $T(x_1+y_1,x_2+y_2,x_3+y_3)=\alpha (x_1+y_1)+\beta( x_2+y_2)+\gamma (x_3+y_3)=$

$T(x_1,x_2,x_3)+T(y_1,y_2,y_3)$

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

I would say that, once you have been introduced to matrices, a (pharisianist ?) answer is

"The definition of $T$ : $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\mapsto(y_1,y_2,y_3)$ is equivalent to matricial equation:

$$\pmatrix{y_1\\y_2\\y_3}=\left(\begin{array}{rrr}1&-1&2\\2&1&0\\-1&-2&2\end{array}\right)\pmatrix{x_1\\x_2\\x_3}$$

which is known to be a linear operator."

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Yes. Show that all 2nd order derivatives are zero, and that the origin is a solution.
(The latter is only necessary if you're referring to the linear-algebra sense of "linear".)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Good point as now I understand ( I think...) what you meant by "the origin is a solution": you meant that $\;T(0,0,0)=0\;$ , right? That wasn't clear (to me). Anyway $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Nov 21 '16 at 8:41
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, of course. I shall delete my first comment as this explains. Thanks $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Nov 21 '16 at 8:45
2
$\begingroup$

It's only a slight improvement, but it is equivalent to show that $$T(aX + Y) = aT(X) + T(Y)$$ for all scalars $a$ and vectors $X,Y$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The lazyman's solution: every expression in the given is a linear combination. Linear combinations are well-known to be linear.

$\endgroup$
-4
$\begingroup$

For any function, if $f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y)$, then the function is linear.

It's easy to show (just write it out) that your T satisfies this.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What are your $\;a,b,x\;$ there? It looks like $\;a,b\;$ are scalars and $\;x\;$ is a vector, but then $\;a+bx\;$ makes no sense... $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Nov 20 '16 at 17:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think you mean $ax + by$. $\endgroup$ – asmeurer Nov 20 '16 at 18:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.