Showing that image of a certain linear map is either trivial or a straight line












2












$begingroup$


From S.L Linear Algebra:




Let $A$ be a non-zero vector in $R^2$. Let $F: mathbb{R}^2
rightarrow W$
be a linear map such that $F(A)=O$. Show that the image
of $F$ is either a straight line or ${0}$.






I've taken following theorems from the book to try and construct the answer (proofs of theorems are omitted):




Theorem 3.2. Let $V$ be a vector space. Let $L: V rightarrow W$ be a linear map of $V$ into another space $W$. Let $n$ be the
dimension of $V$, $q$ the dimension of the kernel of $L$, and $s$ the
dimension of the image of $L$. Then $n = q + s$. In other words,



$$dim V= dim operatorname{Ker} L + dimoperatorname{Im } L$$






Answer that I have constructed assumes all possibilities of dimension that kernel might have (due to cardinality, and Theorem 3.2, $dimoperatorname{Ker}F in {0, 1, 2}$ of a linear map $F$).



Possibility 1) $dimoperatorname{Ker} F = 2$



If the dimension of kernel is $2$, that is, image is zero dimensional according to Theorem 3.2 ($dim operatorname{Im} F = dimmathbb{R}^{2} - dimoperatorname{Ker}F = 2 - 2 = 0$), then considering that kernel is a subspace, $mathbb{R}^2 = operatorname{Ker}F$, and therefore $F$ is a zero map having the image of ${0}$.



Possibility 2) $dimoperatorname{Ker}F = 1$



If kernel is $1$-dimensional, then so is the image according to Theorem 3.2 and thus we have a straight line as the image of $F$, considering that we have one-dimensional image under linear map $F$.



Possibility 3) $dimoperatorname{Ker}F ={0} $ (Presumably impossible)



Kernel can't be zero-dimensional, since it is spanned by two dimensional vectors that are not zero vectors.



Conclusion:



Hence the image of $F$ is either a straight line or ${0}$.





Is this answer sufficient and true? My explanation of Possibility 2) concerns me the most, it might not be specific enough.



Thank you!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $ker F$ can't be $0$ dimensional because $0neq Ainker F$.
    $endgroup$
    – Federico
    Nov 23 '18 at 19:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Federico That is what I tried to imply in the possibility 3, when I mentioned that kernel not being "spanned" by zero vectors makes it non trivial and therefore $> 0$ dimensional.
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:15
















2












$begingroup$


From S.L Linear Algebra:




Let $A$ be a non-zero vector in $R^2$. Let $F: mathbb{R}^2
rightarrow W$
be a linear map such that $F(A)=O$. Show that the image
of $F$ is either a straight line or ${0}$.






I've taken following theorems from the book to try and construct the answer (proofs of theorems are omitted):




Theorem 3.2. Let $V$ be a vector space. Let $L: V rightarrow W$ be a linear map of $V$ into another space $W$. Let $n$ be the
dimension of $V$, $q$ the dimension of the kernel of $L$, and $s$ the
dimension of the image of $L$. Then $n = q + s$. In other words,



$$dim V= dim operatorname{Ker} L + dimoperatorname{Im } L$$






Answer that I have constructed assumes all possibilities of dimension that kernel might have (due to cardinality, and Theorem 3.2, $dimoperatorname{Ker}F in {0, 1, 2}$ of a linear map $F$).



Possibility 1) $dimoperatorname{Ker} F = 2$



If the dimension of kernel is $2$, that is, image is zero dimensional according to Theorem 3.2 ($dim operatorname{Im} F = dimmathbb{R}^{2} - dimoperatorname{Ker}F = 2 - 2 = 0$), then considering that kernel is a subspace, $mathbb{R}^2 = operatorname{Ker}F$, and therefore $F$ is a zero map having the image of ${0}$.



Possibility 2) $dimoperatorname{Ker}F = 1$



If kernel is $1$-dimensional, then so is the image according to Theorem 3.2 and thus we have a straight line as the image of $F$, considering that we have one-dimensional image under linear map $F$.



Possibility 3) $dimoperatorname{Ker}F ={0} $ (Presumably impossible)



Kernel can't be zero-dimensional, since it is spanned by two dimensional vectors that are not zero vectors.



Conclusion:



Hence the image of $F$ is either a straight line or ${0}$.





Is this answer sufficient and true? My explanation of Possibility 2) concerns me the most, it might not be specific enough.



Thank you!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $ker F$ can't be $0$ dimensional because $0neq Ainker F$.
    $endgroup$
    – Federico
    Nov 23 '18 at 19:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Federico That is what I tried to imply in the possibility 3, when I mentioned that kernel not being "spanned" by zero vectors makes it non trivial and therefore $> 0$ dimensional.
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:15














2












2








2





$begingroup$


From S.L Linear Algebra:




Let $A$ be a non-zero vector in $R^2$. Let $F: mathbb{R}^2
rightarrow W$
be a linear map such that $F(A)=O$. Show that the image
of $F$ is either a straight line or ${0}$.






I've taken following theorems from the book to try and construct the answer (proofs of theorems are omitted):




Theorem 3.2. Let $V$ be a vector space. Let $L: V rightarrow W$ be a linear map of $V$ into another space $W$. Let $n$ be the
dimension of $V$, $q$ the dimension of the kernel of $L$, and $s$ the
dimension of the image of $L$. Then $n = q + s$. In other words,



$$dim V= dim operatorname{Ker} L + dimoperatorname{Im } L$$






Answer that I have constructed assumes all possibilities of dimension that kernel might have (due to cardinality, and Theorem 3.2, $dimoperatorname{Ker}F in {0, 1, 2}$ of a linear map $F$).



Possibility 1) $dimoperatorname{Ker} F = 2$



If the dimension of kernel is $2$, that is, image is zero dimensional according to Theorem 3.2 ($dim operatorname{Im} F = dimmathbb{R}^{2} - dimoperatorname{Ker}F = 2 - 2 = 0$), then considering that kernel is a subspace, $mathbb{R}^2 = operatorname{Ker}F$, and therefore $F$ is a zero map having the image of ${0}$.



Possibility 2) $dimoperatorname{Ker}F = 1$



If kernel is $1$-dimensional, then so is the image according to Theorem 3.2 and thus we have a straight line as the image of $F$, considering that we have one-dimensional image under linear map $F$.



Possibility 3) $dimoperatorname{Ker}F ={0} $ (Presumably impossible)



Kernel can't be zero-dimensional, since it is spanned by two dimensional vectors that are not zero vectors.



Conclusion:



Hence the image of $F$ is either a straight line or ${0}$.





Is this answer sufficient and true? My explanation of Possibility 2) concerns me the most, it might not be specific enough.



Thank you!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




From S.L Linear Algebra:




Let $A$ be a non-zero vector in $R^2$. Let $F: mathbb{R}^2
rightarrow W$
be a linear map such that $F(A)=O$. Show that the image
of $F$ is either a straight line or ${0}$.






I've taken following theorems from the book to try and construct the answer (proofs of theorems are omitted):




Theorem 3.2. Let $V$ be a vector space. Let $L: V rightarrow W$ be a linear map of $V$ into another space $W$. Let $n$ be the
dimension of $V$, $q$ the dimension of the kernel of $L$, and $s$ the
dimension of the image of $L$. Then $n = q + s$. In other words,



$$dim V= dim operatorname{Ker} L + dimoperatorname{Im } L$$






Answer that I have constructed assumes all possibilities of dimension that kernel might have (due to cardinality, and Theorem 3.2, $dimoperatorname{Ker}F in {0, 1, 2}$ of a linear map $F$).



Possibility 1) $dimoperatorname{Ker} F = 2$



If the dimension of kernel is $2$, that is, image is zero dimensional according to Theorem 3.2 ($dim operatorname{Im} F = dimmathbb{R}^{2} - dimoperatorname{Ker}F = 2 - 2 = 0$), then considering that kernel is a subspace, $mathbb{R}^2 = operatorname{Ker}F$, and therefore $F$ is a zero map having the image of ${0}$.



Possibility 2) $dimoperatorname{Ker}F = 1$



If kernel is $1$-dimensional, then so is the image according to Theorem 3.2 and thus we have a straight line as the image of $F$, considering that we have one-dimensional image under linear map $F$.



Possibility 3) $dimoperatorname{Ker}F ={0} $ (Presumably impossible)



Kernel can't be zero-dimensional, since it is spanned by two dimensional vectors that are not zero vectors.



Conclusion:



Hence the image of $F$ is either a straight line or ${0}$.





Is this answer sufficient and true? My explanation of Possibility 2) concerns me the most, it might not be specific enough.



Thank you!







linear-algebra functions linear-transformations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 23 '18 at 19:19









Bernard

119k639112




119k639112










asked Nov 23 '18 at 19:12









ShellRoxShellRox

26028




26028








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $ker F$ can't be $0$ dimensional because $0neq Ainker F$.
    $endgroup$
    – Federico
    Nov 23 '18 at 19:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Federico That is what I tried to imply in the possibility 3, when I mentioned that kernel not being "spanned" by zero vectors makes it non trivial and therefore $> 0$ dimensional.
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:15














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $ker F$ can't be $0$ dimensional because $0neq Ainker F$.
    $endgroup$
    – Federico
    Nov 23 '18 at 19:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Federico That is what I tried to imply in the possibility 3, when I mentioned that kernel not being "spanned" by zero vectors makes it non trivial and therefore $> 0$ dimensional.
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:15








1




1




$begingroup$
$ker F$ can't be $0$ dimensional because $0neq Ainker F$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Nov 23 '18 at 19:16




$begingroup$
$ker F$ can't be $0$ dimensional because $0neq Ainker F$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Nov 23 '18 at 19:16












$begingroup$
@Federico That is what I tried to imply in the possibility 3, when I mentioned that kernel not being "spanned" by zero vectors makes it non trivial and therefore $> 0$ dimensional.
$endgroup$
– ShellRox
Nov 23 '18 at 22:15




$begingroup$
@Federico That is what I tried to imply in the possibility 3, when I mentioned that kernel not being "spanned" by zero vectors makes it non trivial and therefore $> 0$ dimensional.
$endgroup$
– ShellRox
Nov 23 '18 at 22:15










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Your approach is correct!



P1) $dim(Im F)=0 implies Im(F)={0}$, because the image of a linear function is a subspace and hence $0$ is in it, and can't have anything else because its dimension is zero. So $F(x)=0 forall x$



P2) we have $dim(Ker F)=1$, applying the theorem you get $dim(Im T)=1$ and you can use the fact that two vector spaces are isomorphic (they are "the same space") if their dimension are equal, hence you can say that $Im(T)cong mathbb{R}$ which is a very nice way to justify that "$Im(T)$ is a straight line".



P3) can't be the case that $dim(Ker T)=0$ because this would implie $Ker(T)={0}$, but we know that $Anot=0$ and $Ain Ker(T)$



Your answer is good too! But it seems like it need to be more "direct" in a way... but the question isn't too direct either... I assumed that "being a straight line" is the same that "have dimension one"... but justifying that dimension one implies being isomorphic to the reals is also a good argument (because they are often called THE line).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you! So since two subspaces can be associated with bijective mapping (injective and surjective) they are isomorphic in this case. I have one last question, on my possibility 3 explanation, was I correct when I said that kernel not being "spanned" by only zero vectors makes it non trivial and higher dimensional?
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I got what you said... yes! By definition if a subspace is "spanned" by some vectors, say $W=Span(v_1,cdots,v_n)$, then $dim (W)$ is the smallest number of non-zero vectors that we can get from $v_1,cdots, v_n$ and the Span still be $W$. Knowing that some $v_i$ is not zero you won't have all $W$ if you delet all $v_n$
    $endgroup$
    – Robson
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I get it! Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 23:48



















1












$begingroup$

You're trying to use the Rank-Nullity Theorem.
$$ r + n = text{dim of the domain}$$.



You know 2 $ge$ n $ge$ 1, since A $in$ Ket(T). Thus 0 $le$ r $le$ 1.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010723%2fshowing-that-image-of-a-certain-linear-map-is-either-trivial-or-a-straight-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    Your approach is correct!



    P1) $dim(Im F)=0 implies Im(F)={0}$, because the image of a linear function is a subspace and hence $0$ is in it, and can't have anything else because its dimension is zero. So $F(x)=0 forall x$



    P2) we have $dim(Ker F)=1$, applying the theorem you get $dim(Im T)=1$ and you can use the fact that two vector spaces are isomorphic (they are "the same space") if their dimension are equal, hence you can say that $Im(T)cong mathbb{R}$ which is a very nice way to justify that "$Im(T)$ is a straight line".



    P3) can't be the case that $dim(Ker T)=0$ because this would implie $Ker(T)={0}$, but we know that $Anot=0$ and $Ain Ker(T)$



    Your answer is good too! But it seems like it need to be more "direct" in a way... but the question isn't too direct either... I assumed that "being a straight line" is the same that "have dimension one"... but justifying that dimension one implies being isomorphic to the reals is also a good argument (because they are often called THE line).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you! So since two subspaces can be associated with bijective mapping (injective and surjective) they are isomorphic in this case. I have one last question, on my possibility 3 explanation, was I correct when I said that kernel not being "spanned" by only zero vectors makes it non trivial and higher dimensional?
      $endgroup$
      – ShellRox
      Nov 23 '18 at 22:11






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If I got what you said... yes! By definition if a subspace is "spanned" by some vectors, say $W=Span(v_1,cdots,v_n)$, then $dim (W)$ is the smallest number of non-zero vectors that we can get from $v_1,cdots, v_n$ and the Span still be $W$. Knowing that some $v_i$ is not zero you won't have all $W$ if you delet all $v_n$
      $endgroup$
      – Robson
      Nov 23 '18 at 22:21








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Now I get it! Thank you!
      $endgroup$
      – ShellRox
      Nov 23 '18 at 23:48
















    1












    $begingroup$

    Your approach is correct!



    P1) $dim(Im F)=0 implies Im(F)={0}$, because the image of a linear function is a subspace and hence $0$ is in it, and can't have anything else because its dimension is zero. So $F(x)=0 forall x$



    P2) we have $dim(Ker F)=1$, applying the theorem you get $dim(Im T)=1$ and you can use the fact that two vector spaces are isomorphic (they are "the same space") if their dimension are equal, hence you can say that $Im(T)cong mathbb{R}$ which is a very nice way to justify that "$Im(T)$ is a straight line".



    P3) can't be the case that $dim(Ker T)=0$ because this would implie $Ker(T)={0}$, but we know that $Anot=0$ and $Ain Ker(T)$



    Your answer is good too! But it seems like it need to be more "direct" in a way... but the question isn't too direct either... I assumed that "being a straight line" is the same that "have dimension one"... but justifying that dimension one implies being isomorphic to the reals is also a good argument (because they are often called THE line).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you! So since two subspaces can be associated with bijective mapping (injective and surjective) they are isomorphic in this case. I have one last question, on my possibility 3 explanation, was I correct when I said that kernel not being "spanned" by only zero vectors makes it non trivial and higher dimensional?
      $endgroup$
      – ShellRox
      Nov 23 '18 at 22:11






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If I got what you said... yes! By definition if a subspace is "spanned" by some vectors, say $W=Span(v_1,cdots,v_n)$, then $dim (W)$ is the smallest number of non-zero vectors that we can get from $v_1,cdots, v_n$ and the Span still be $W$. Knowing that some $v_i$ is not zero you won't have all $W$ if you delet all $v_n$
      $endgroup$
      – Robson
      Nov 23 '18 at 22:21








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Now I get it! Thank you!
      $endgroup$
      – ShellRox
      Nov 23 '18 at 23:48














    1












    1








    1





    $begingroup$

    Your approach is correct!



    P1) $dim(Im F)=0 implies Im(F)={0}$, because the image of a linear function is a subspace and hence $0$ is in it, and can't have anything else because its dimension is zero. So $F(x)=0 forall x$



    P2) we have $dim(Ker F)=1$, applying the theorem you get $dim(Im T)=1$ and you can use the fact that two vector spaces are isomorphic (they are "the same space") if their dimension are equal, hence you can say that $Im(T)cong mathbb{R}$ which is a very nice way to justify that "$Im(T)$ is a straight line".



    P3) can't be the case that $dim(Ker T)=0$ because this would implie $Ker(T)={0}$, but we know that $Anot=0$ and $Ain Ker(T)$



    Your answer is good too! But it seems like it need to be more "direct" in a way... but the question isn't too direct either... I assumed that "being a straight line" is the same that "have dimension one"... but justifying that dimension one implies being isomorphic to the reals is also a good argument (because they are often called THE line).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Your approach is correct!



    P1) $dim(Im F)=0 implies Im(F)={0}$, because the image of a linear function is a subspace and hence $0$ is in it, and can't have anything else because its dimension is zero. So $F(x)=0 forall x$



    P2) we have $dim(Ker F)=1$, applying the theorem you get $dim(Im T)=1$ and you can use the fact that two vector spaces are isomorphic (they are "the same space") if their dimension are equal, hence you can say that $Im(T)cong mathbb{R}$ which is a very nice way to justify that "$Im(T)$ is a straight line".



    P3) can't be the case that $dim(Ker T)=0$ because this would implie $Ker(T)={0}$, but we know that $Anot=0$ and $Ain Ker(T)$



    Your answer is good too! But it seems like it need to be more "direct" in a way... but the question isn't too direct either... I assumed that "being a straight line" is the same that "have dimension one"... but justifying that dimension one implies being isomorphic to the reals is also a good argument (because they are often called THE line).







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 23 '18 at 22:04









    RobsonRobson

    769221




    769221








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you! So since two subspaces can be associated with bijective mapping (injective and surjective) they are isomorphic in this case. I have one last question, on my possibility 3 explanation, was I correct when I said that kernel not being "spanned" by only zero vectors makes it non trivial and higher dimensional?
      $endgroup$
      – ShellRox
      Nov 23 '18 at 22:11






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If I got what you said... yes! By definition if a subspace is "spanned" by some vectors, say $W=Span(v_1,cdots,v_n)$, then $dim (W)$ is the smallest number of non-zero vectors that we can get from $v_1,cdots, v_n$ and the Span still be $W$. Knowing that some $v_i$ is not zero you won't have all $W$ if you delet all $v_n$
      $endgroup$
      – Robson
      Nov 23 '18 at 22:21








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Now I get it! Thank you!
      $endgroup$
      – ShellRox
      Nov 23 '18 at 23:48














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you! So since two subspaces can be associated with bijective mapping (injective and surjective) they are isomorphic in this case. I have one last question, on my possibility 3 explanation, was I correct when I said that kernel not being "spanned" by only zero vectors makes it non trivial and higher dimensional?
      $endgroup$
      – ShellRox
      Nov 23 '18 at 22:11






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If I got what you said... yes! By definition if a subspace is "spanned" by some vectors, say $W=Span(v_1,cdots,v_n)$, then $dim (W)$ is the smallest number of non-zero vectors that we can get from $v_1,cdots, v_n$ and the Span still be $W$. Knowing that some $v_i$ is not zero you won't have all $W$ if you delet all $v_n$
      $endgroup$
      – Robson
      Nov 23 '18 at 22:21








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Now I get it! Thank you!
      $endgroup$
      – ShellRox
      Nov 23 '18 at 23:48








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you! So since two subspaces can be associated with bijective mapping (injective and surjective) they are isomorphic in this case. I have one last question, on my possibility 3 explanation, was I correct when I said that kernel not being "spanned" by only zero vectors makes it non trivial and higher dimensional?
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:11




    $begingroup$
    Thank you! So since two subspaces can be associated with bijective mapping (injective and surjective) they are isomorphic in this case. I have one last question, on my possibility 3 explanation, was I correct when I said that kernel not being "spanned" by only zero vectors makes it non trivial and higher dimensional?
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:11




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    If I got what you said... yes! By definition if a subspace is "spanned" by some vectors, say $W=Span(v_1,cdots,v_n)$, then $dim (W)$ is the smallest number of non-zero vectors that we can get from $v_1,cdots, v_n$ and the Span still be $W$. Knowing that some $v_i$ is not zero you won't have all $W$ if you delet all $v_n$
    $endgroup$
    – Robson
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:21






    $begingroup$
    If I got what you said... yes! By definition if a subspace is "spanned" by some vectors, say $W=Span(v_1,cdots,v_n)$, then $dim (W)$ is the smallest number of non-zero vectors that we can get from $v_1,cdots, v_n$ and the Span still be $W$. Knowing that some $v_i$ is not zero you won't have all $W$ if you delet all $v_n$
    $endgroup$
    – Robson
    Nov 23 '18 at 22:21






    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Now I get it! Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 23:48




    $begingroup$
    Now I get it! Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – ShellRox
    Nov 23 '18 at 23:48











    1












    $begingroup$

    You're trying to use the Rank-Nullity Theorem.
    $$ r + n = text{dim of the domain}$$.



    You know 2 $ge$ n $ge$ 1, since A $in$ Ket(T). Thus 0 $le$ r $le$ 1.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      You're trying to use the Rank-Nullity Theorem.
      $$ r + n = text{dim of the domain}$$.



      You know 2 $ge$ n $ge$ 1, since A $in$ Ket(T). Thus 0 $le$ r $le$ 1.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        You're trying to use the Rank-Nullity Theorem.
        $$ r + n = text{dim of the domain}$$.



        You know 2 $ge$ n $ge$ 1, since A $in$ Ket(T). Thus 0 $le$ r $le$ 1.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        You're trying to use the Rank-Nullity Theorem.
        $$ r + n = text{dim of the domain}$$.



        You know 2 $ge$ n $ge$ 1, since A $in$ Ket(T). Thus 0 $le$ r $le$ 1.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 23 '18 at 20:19









        Joel PereiraJoel Pereira

        68819




        68819






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010723%2fshowing-that-image-of-a-certain-linear-map-is-either-trivial-or-a-straight-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?