3
$\begingroup$

OK, I think I am on the right track but I am trying to figure out if I am going wrong somewhere.

Let $V$ be a vector space over a field $K$. Let $B = \{x_1, x_2, x_3, \ldots , x_n\}$ be a base of $V$ over $K$. Then for all $x \in V$ there exist unique scalars $\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_n$ in $K$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_1 x_i = x$.

We call the $\lambda_i$ the $i$-th component of $x$ with respect to base $B$. Let $p_i(x)$ denote the $i$-th component of $x$ with respect to base $B$, where $p_i$ is a projection map.

Prove the following:

  1. That $p_i: V \to K$ is a linear map and therefore $p_i \in \operatorname{Hom}_k(V, K)$.
  2. Show that $\{p_1, p_2,\ldots, p_n\}$ is a base of $\operatorname{Hom}_K(V,K)$.
  3. Show that there is an isomorphism $\Psi : V \to \operatorname{Hom}_K(V,K)$ such that $\Psi(x_i) = p_i$ for all $1 \le i \le n$.

I got through part of this. My reasoning was that since $p_i$ is a projection onto $V$ then by definition any vector $p_i(x) \in V$ which means that like any other vector in the space it can be expressed as a linear combination of some scalar (call it $\mu$) such that $p_i(x) =\{\mu_1 x_1 + \mu_2 x_2 + \cdots + \mu_n x_n\} = \sum^n_{i=1}\mu_i x_i$.

Since it can be expressed that way, that means that if we pick any other vector in $V$, say $y$, that can also be expressed as a linear combination of the base components (say, $\lambda_ix_i$). So if we add $x$ and $y$ and plug them into the projection map we get

$p_i(x+y) = \sum^n_{i=1}\mu_ix_i + \lambda_ix_i$ which with a little algebra can be separated into $\sum_{i=1}^n \mu_i x_i + \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i x_i$. A similar process can prove that it preserves scalar multiplication.

Is this reasoning correct? Because if it is, my next step was to say that given that $p_i$ is a linear map, and that it is from $V$ to $V$, the number of dimensions it has is going to be the same as the dual space. But I am not convinced that's a good reason.

Any input would be welcome.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Let's be careful with our notation. Don't write things like $p_i(x) \in V$. $\endgroup$
    – Ink
    Jun 30 '13 at 5:51
2
$\begingroup$

First let's prove that $p_i : V \to K$ is a linear map. Let $v, w \in V$, where $v = a_1x_1 + \dots a_nx_n$ and $w = b_1x_n + \dots b_nx_n$. Since $v + w = (a_1 + b_1)x_1 + \dots + (a_n + b_n)x_n$, we have $p_i(v + w) = a_i + b_i = p_i(v) + p_i(w)$. Now suppose $c \in K$. Clearly, $cv = (ca_1)x_1 + \dots + (ca_n)x_n$, and thus $p_i(cv) = ca_i = cp_i(v)$.

For the second question, if you can use the fact that $\operatorname{Hom}_K(V, K)$ has dimension $n$, it suffices to show that $\{p_1, \dots, p_n\}$ is linearly independent. Assume $c_i \in F$ such that

$$c_1p_1 + \dots + c_np_n = 0 \in \operatorname{Hom}_K(V, K)$$

If $c_i \ne 0$ for some $i$, we have

$$(c_1p_1 + \dots + c_np_n)(x_i) = c_1p_1(x_i) + \dots + c_np_n(x_i) = c_ip_i(x_i) = c_i \in K$$

in which case $c_1p_1 + \dots + c_np_n$ is not zero. Alternatively, it's not too hard to show that $\{p_1, \dots, p_n\}$ is a spanning set for $\operatorname{Hom}_K(V, K)$. Any $T \in \operatorname{Hom}_K(V, K)$ is completely determined by its value at the basis elements, so say we have $T(x_i) = \lambda_i$. Then

$$(\lambda_1p_1 + \dots + \lambda_np_n)(x_i) = \lambda_1p_1(x_i) + \dots + \lambda_np_n(x_i) = \lambda_ip_i(x_i) = \lambda_i $$

Since both maps agree on basis elements, we conclude that $\lambda_1p_1 + \dots + \lambda_np_n = T$.

For 3, I don't think there is much to show. Once you define $\Psi: V \to \operatorname{Hom}_K(V, K)$ on the basis elements by $\Psi(x_i) = p_i$. This extends $K$-linearly to a well-defined linear map $V \to \operatorname{Hom}_K(V, K)$, which is clearly an isomorphism.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, tho shouldn't $p_i(v+w) = (a_1+b_1)x_1+...+(a_n+b_n)x_n$ or did you write basically the same thing? $\endgroup$
    – Jesse
    Jun 30 '13 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ and i should say that the people at stackexchange are the only thing that has stood between me and failing this course. $\endgroup$
    – Jesse
    Jun 30 '13 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ one last bit: on the last question, since $Psi$ is the homomorphism (we assume it is) and since $p_i$ is a projection, which is a linear map, and $Psi(x_i)$ = $p_i$, then it's an isomorphism, yes? $\endgroup$
    – Jesse
    Jun 30 '13 at 15:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Jesse By definition, if $v = a_1x_1 + \dots + a_nx_n$, we have $p_i(v) = a_i$, so $p_i(v + w) = a_i + b_i$ would be correct, and not what you wrote. Remember $p_i$ is a map from $V$ to $F$. $\endgroup$
    – Ink
    Jun 30 '13 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Jesse I defined $\Psi$ on each $x_i$, and this extends to all of $V$ via $a_1x_1 + \dots + a_nx_n \mapsto a_1p_1 + \dots + a_np_n$. Can you show that this map is one-to-one and onto? $\endgroup$
    – Ink
    Jun 30 '13 at 18:01

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.