While studying for Linear Algebra, I stumpled upon two questions, both formatted the same, yet one being more difficult for me than the other.

Question A Given a finite dimensional linear subspace $V$ with it's basis $\{v_1, \cdots, v_n\}, n \in \mathbb{N} $, and a linear subspace $W$ consisting out of the vectors $w_1, \cdots, w_n$ Proof that there exists are Linear Transformation $L$, such that $L(v_i) = w_i$, for $i = 1, 2, \cdots, n$.

My Answer Because the basis of $V$ is given by $v_1, \cdots, v_n$ we can also represent it as $\mathbb{I}_n$ in matrixform. We can describe any linear transformation with a matrix multiplication. Let's describe $L$ with $L_{mat}$ If we describe al vectors $w_1, \cdots, w_n$ in matrix $W_{mat}$, the following equation will hold:

$L_{mat} \cdot \mathbb{I}_n = W_{mat}$, therefore: $L_{mat} = W_{mat} * \mathbb{I}_n^{-1}$, so $L_{mat} = W_{mat}$. Because $W_{mat}$ exists, $L_{mat}$ will too.

Question B Assuming this proof is correct, how to prove this for infinite sized linear subspaces $V$ with basis $\{v_i \mid v_i \in \mathbb{N}\}$ and subspace $W$ with vectors $w_i, i \in \mathbb{N}$? I don't see what is different now? What can or can't I do? I know that infinite linear subspaces don't really have a basis, or it's at least hard to define them. Therefore it's also nearly impossible to express them in a matrix. How to approach this problem?


1 Answer 1


Your proof is ok in that it provides a correct linear transformation (its matrix indeed coincides with $W_{mat}$, where the columns are the coordinates of $w_i$ in the basis $\{v_i\}$). Think about what it means: given any vector in $x \in V$ you express it in a unique way (because $\{v_i\}$ is a basis) as $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i v_i$ (here numbers $x_i \in \mathbb K$ are usually called the coordinates of $x$ in the basis $\{v_i\}$), and then transformation $L$ just replaces $v_i$ in this representation with $w_i = \sum_{j=1}^n w_{ij}v_j$ (here $w_{ij}$ are the coordinates of $w_i$ in the basis $\{v_j\}$). This certainly gives a well defined (do you understand why?) transformation $L: V \to V$, $L: \sum_{i=1}^n x_i v_i \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^n x_i w_i$, which can easily be shown to be linear from the definition (do check that $L(x+y) = Lx + Ly$ and $L(\lambda x) = \lambda Lx$).

The infinite case is not very much different once you recall what the definition of the algebraic (aka Hamel) basis is: $\{v_i\}_{i \in \mathbb N}$ is a basis of $V$ if every nonzero vector $x \in V$ can be uniquely represented as $x = \sum_{i \in M} x_i v_i$, where $M \subset \mathbb N$ is finite and $x_i \neq 0$. In other words every $x$ has a unique representation as a finite linear combination of basis vectors. (This is of course a very natural definition, since no "infinite linear combination" is even defined in linear algebra. So the word "finite" is redundant here, but it seems to be useful to stress that.)

  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I understand the part about infinite linear subspaces. Like in $\mathbb{R}[X]$, the standard basis is expressed in an infintely big amount of finite combinations, namely: $\{1, X, X^2, \cdots\}$, right? Now what I just don't understand in your reasoning where you say that $L$ would replace $v_i$ with $w_i = \sum_{i=1}^{n}x_i v_i$. So we can express the vector $w_i$ in terms of a sum of basis vectors $v_i$. And this means we have a lineair transformation. Why? $\endgroup$
    – Rich_Rich
    Dec 11, 2016 at 12:56
  • $\begingroup$ I never wrote that. What I wrote is that $L$ replaces $v_i$ with $w_i$, so that $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i v_i$ gets mapped to $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i w_i$. It remains to check (which is easy and useful) that a) this correctly defines a transformation $L$: every $x \in V$ is mapped in a unique way to $Lx \in V$; and b) $L$ is linear. $\endgroup$
    – ald.li
    Dec 11, 2016 at 13:47

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.