If ${ u_1,…,u_n}$ is a linearly independent of $U$, show that ${ T(u_1), …, T(u_n)}$ is linearly...












1












$begingroup$


My Professor gives us a homework that contains this question:




Let $U$ and $V$ be a vector spaces on a field $F$, and let $T:U to V$ be a linear transformation on $F$.



If ${ u_1,...,u_n}$ is a linearly independent of $U$, show that ${ T(u_1), ..., T(u_n)}$ is linearly independent.




Is that true? I took $T:mathbb{R}^2 to mathbb{R}$, such that $T((x,y))=0$ for all $(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2$



Then I found that ${ (1,0),(0,1)}$ is linearly independent in $ mathbb{R}^2$, but ${T(1,0)=0,T(0,1)=0}$ is not linearly independent in $mathbb{R}$ ?



What do you think?






linear-algebra linear-transformations







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you are correct, and you may need to check if it is linearly dependent or independent.
    $endgroup$
    – Quang Hoang
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:19






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is not true. Indeed, you need $T$ to be an injection for this to be true in general.
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Or, if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are independent.
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:29
















1












$begingroup$


My Professor gives us a homework that contains this question:




Let $U$ and $V$ be a vector spaces on a field $F$, and let $T:U to V$ be a linear transformation on $F$.



If ${ u_1,...,u_n}$ is a linearly independent of $U$, show that ${ T(u_1), ..., T(u_n)}$ is linearly independent.




Is that true? I took $T:mathbb{R}^2 to mathbb{R}$, such that $T((x,y))=0$ for all $(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2$



Then I found that ${ (1,0),(0,1)}$ is linearly independent in $ mathbb{R}^2$, but ${T(1,0)=0,T(0,1)=0}$ is not linearly independent in $mathbb{R}$ ?



What do you think?






linear-algebra linear-transformations







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you are correct, and you may need to check if it is linearly dependent or independent.
    $endgroup$
    – Quang Hoang
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:19






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is not true. Indeed, you need $T$ to be an injection for this to be true in general.
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Or, if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are independent.
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:29














1












1








1





$begingroup$


My Professor gives us a homework that contains this question:




Let $U$ and $V$ be a vector spaces on a field $F$, and let $T:U to V$ be a linear transformation on $F$.



If ${ u_1,...,u_n}$ is a linearly independent of $U$, show that ${ T(u_1), ..., T(u_n)}$ is linearly independent.




Is that true? I took $T:mathbb{R}^2 to mathbb{R}$, such that $T((x,y))=0$ for all $(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2$



Then I found that ${ (1,0),(0,1)}$ is linearly independent in $ mathbb{R}^2$, but ${T(1,0)=0,T(0,1)=0}$ is not linearly independent in $mathbb{R}$ ?



What do you think?






linear-algebra linear-transformations







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




My Professor gives us a homework that contains this question:




Let $U$ and $V$ be a vector spaces on a field $F$, and let $T:U to V$ be a linear transformation on $F$.



If ${ u_1,...,u_n}$ is a linearly independent of $U$, show that ${ T(u_1), ..., T(u_n)}$ is linearly independent.




Is that true? I took $T:mathbb{R}^2 to mathbb{R}$, such that $T((x,y))=0$ for all $(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2$



Then I found that ${ (1,0),(0,1)}$ is linearly independent in $ mathbb{R}^2$, but ${T(1,0)=0,T(0,1)=0}$ is not linearly independent in $mathbb{R}$ ?



What do you think?






linear-algebra linear-transformations




linear-algebra linear-transformations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 28 '18 at 17:17







Dima

















asked Nov 28 '18 at 17:14









DimaDima

623416




623416








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you are correct, and you may need to check if it is linearly dependent or independent.
    $endgroup$
    – Quang Hoang
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:19






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is not true. Indeed, you need $T$ to be an injection for this to be true in general.
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Or, if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are independent.
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:29














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you are correct, and you may need to check if it is linearly dependent or independent.
    $endgroup$
    – Quang Hoang
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:19






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is not true. Indeed, you need $T$ to be an injection for this to be true in general.
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Or, if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are independent.
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Nov 28 '18 at 17:29








1




1




$begingroup$
I think you are correct, and you may need to check if it is linearly dependent or independent.
$endgroup$
– Quang Hoang
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19




$begingroup$
I think you are correct, and you may need to check if it is linearly dependent or independent.
$endgroup$
– Quang Hoang
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19




1




1




$begingroup$
It is not true. Indeed, you need $T$ to be an injection for this to be true in general.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Andrews
Nov 28 '18 at 17:21




$begingroup$
It is not true. Indeed, you need $T$ to be an injection for this to be true in general.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Andrews
Nov 28 '18 at 17:21




1




1




$begingroup$
Or, if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Andrews
Nov 28 '18 at 17:29




$begingroup$
Or, if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Andrews
Nov 28 '18 at 17:29










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

Your example is a valid counterexample to the claim.
So, this is not true without additional hypotheses on the linear transformation $T$. If you assume, for instance, that $T$ is injective, then the claim is indeed true. Or, as @ThomasAndrews says in the comments under the question, perhaps you meant to claim that if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are linearly independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are linearly independent.




Additionally, a small note on terminology: it is preferable to say that ${ u_1,dots,u_n }$ is a linearly independent subset of $U$, and that ${ T(1,0), T(0,1) }$ is not linearly independent over $mathbb{R}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    You are correct. This also needs to assume that $T$ is invertible (or as Brahadeesh points out, injectivity suffices). In that case, if
    $$alpha_1 T(u_1) + cdots + alpha_n T(u_n) = 0$$
    linearity tells us
    $$T(alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n) = 0,$$
    and hence if we apply $T^{-1}$ to both sides
    $$alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n = 0.$$ Since ${u_1,ldots,u_n}$ are linearly independent this implies that $alpha_1=cdots=alpha_n=0$, and then by definition ${T(u_1),ldots,T(u_n)}$ are linearly independent as well.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Yes, being injective is the same as having a left-inverse. (That's easy to show for finite-dimensional $U,V$, but might require the axiom of choice in the case of infinite dimensions?)
      $endgroup$
      – Thomas Andrews
      Nov 28 '18 at 17:27



















    3












    $begingroup$

    In general, this isn't true as your counterexample shows.



    If $T$ is invertible then the statement holds. Start from
    $$c_1T(u_1)+cdots+c_nT(u_n)=0$$
    Apply $T^{-1}$ on both sides and get
    $$c_1u_1+cdots+c_nu_n=0$$
    and $c_1=cdots=c_n=0$ by assumption. Actually it is enough for $T$ to have a left inverse i.e. $T$ is injective.






    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%2f3017410%2fif-u-1-u-n-is-a-linearly-independent-of-u-show-that-tu-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6












      $begingroup$

      Your example is a valid counterexample to the claim.
      So, this is not true without additional hypotheses on the linear transformation $T$. If you assume, for instance, that $T$ is injective, then the claim is indeed true. Or, as @ThomasAndrews says in the comments under the question, perhaps you meant to claim that if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are linearly independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are linearly independent.




      Additionally, a small note on terminology: it is preferable to say that ${ u_1,dots,u_n }$ is a linearly independent subset of $U$, and that ${ T(1,0), T(0,1) }$ is not linearly independent over $mathbb{R}$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        6












        $begingroup$

        Your example is a valid counterexample to the claim.
        So, this is not true without additional hypotheses on the linear transformation $T$. If you assume, for instance, that $T$ is injective, then the claim is indeed true. Or, as @ThomasAndrews says in the comments under the question, perhaps you meant to claim that if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are linearly independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are linearly independent.




        Additionally, a small note on terminology: it is preferable to say that ${ u_1,dots,u_n }$ is a linearly independent subset of $U$, and that ${ T(1,0), T(0,1) }$ is not linearly independent over $mathbb{R}$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Your example is a valid counterexample to the claim.
          So, this is not true without additional hypotheses on the linear transformation $T$. If you assume, for instance, that $T$ is injective, then the claim is indeed true. Or, as @ThomasAndrews says in the comments under the question, perhaps you meant to claim that if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are linearly independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are linearly independent.




          Additionally, a small note on terminology: it is preferable to say that ${ u_1,dots,u_n }$ is a linearly independent subset of $U$, and that ${ T(1,0), T(0,1) }$ is not linearly independent over $mathbb{R}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Your example is a valid counterexample to the claim.
          So, this is not true without additional hypotheses on the linear transformation $T$. If you assume, for instance, that $T$ is injective, then the claim is indeed true. Or, as @ThomasAndrews says in the comments under the question, perhaps you meant to claim that if $T(u_1),dots,T(u_n)$ are linearly independent, then $u_1,dots,u_n$ are linearly independent.




          Additionally, a small note on terminology: it is preferable to say that ${ u_1,dots,u_n }$ is a linearly independent subset of $U$, and that ${ T(1,0), T(0,1) }$ is not linearly independent over $mathbb{R}$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Nov 28 '18 at 18:34

























          answered Nov 28 '18 at 17:21









          BrahadeeshBrahadeesh

          6,24242361




          6,24242361























              3












              $begingroup$

              You are correct. This also needs to assume that $T$ is invertible (or as Brahadeesh points out, injectivity suffices). In that case, if
              $$alpha_1 T(u_1) + cdots + alpha_n T(u_n) = 0$$
              linearity tells us
              $$T(alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n) = 0,$$
              and hence if we apply $T^{-1}$ to both sides
              $$alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n = 0.$$ Since ${u_1,ldots,u_n}$ are linearly independent this implies that $alpha_1=cdots=alpha_n=0$, and then by definition ${T(u_1),ldots,T(u_n)}$ are linearly independent as well.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Yes, being injective is the same as having a left-inverse. (That's easy to show for finite-dimensional $U,V$, but might require the axiom of choice in the case of infinite dimensions?)
                $endgroup$
                – Thomas Andrews
                Nov 28 '18 at 17:27
















              3












              $begingroup$

              You are correct. This also needs to assume that $T$ is invertible (or as Brahadeesh points out, injectivity suffices). In that case, if
              $$alpha_1 T(u_1) + cdots + alpha_n T(u_n) = 0$$
              linearity tells us
              $$T(alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n) = 0,$$
              and hence if we apply $T^{-1}$ to both sides
              $$alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n = 0.$$ Since ${u_1,ldots,u_n}$ are linearly independent this implies that $alpha_1=cdots=alpha_n=0$, and then by definition ${T(u_1),ldots,T(u_n)}$ are linearly independent as well.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Yes, being injective is the same as having a left-inverse. (That's easy to show for finite-dimensional $U,V$, but might require the axiom of choice in the case of infinite dimensions?)
                $endgroup$
                – Thomas Andrews
                Nov 28 '18 at 17:27














              3












              3








              3





              $begingroup$

              You are correct. This also needs to assume that $T$ is invertible (or as Brahadeesh points out, injectivity suffices). In that case, if
              $$alpha_1 T(u_1) + cdots + alpha_n T(u_n) = 0$$
              linearity tells us
              $$T(alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n) = 0,$$
              and hence if we apply $T^{-1}$ to both sides
              $$alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n = 0.$$ Since ${u_1,ldots,u_n}$ are linearly independent this implies that $alpha_1=cdots=alpha_n=0$, and then by definition ${T(u_1),ldots,T(u_n)}$ are linearly independent as well.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              You are correct. This also needs to assume that $T$ is invertible (or as Brahadeesh points out, injectivity suffices). In that case, if
              $$alpha_1 T(u_1) + cdots + alpha_n T(u_n) = 0$$
              linearity tells us
              $$T(alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n) = 0,$$
              and hence if we apply $T^{-1}$ to both sides
              $$alpha_1 u_1 + cdots + alpha_n u_n = 0.$$ Since ${u_1,ldots,u_n}$ are linearly independent this implies that $alpha_1=cdots=alpha_n=0$, and then by definition ${T(u_1),ldots,T(u_n)}$ are linearly independent as well.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Nov 28 '18 at 17:22









              cdipaolocdipaolo

              665312




              665312








              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Yes, being injective is the same as having a left-inverse. (That's easy to show for finite-dimensional $U,V$, but might require the axiom of choice in the case of infinite dimensions?)
                $endgroup$
                – Thomas Andrews
                Nov 28 '18 at 17:27














              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Yes, being injective is the same as having a left-inverse. (That's easy to show for finite-dimensional $U,V$, but might require the axiom of choice in the case of infinite dimensions?)
                $endgroup$
                – Thomas Andrews
                Nov 28 '18 at 17:27








              3




              3




              $begingroup$
              Yes, being injective is the same as having a left-inverse. (That's easy to show for finite-dimensional $U,V$, but might require the axiom of choice in the case of infinite dimensions?)
              $endgroup$
              – Thomas Andrews
              Nov 28 '18 at 17:27




              $begingroup$
              Yes, being injective is the same as having a left-inverse. (That's easy to show for finite-dimensional $U,V$, but might require the axiom of choice in the case of infinite dimensions?)
              $endgroup$
              – Thomas Andrews
              Nov 28 '18 at 17:27











              3












              $begingroup$

              In general, this isn't true as your counterexample shows.



              If $T$ is invertible then the statement holds. Start from
              $$c_1T(u_1)+cdots+c_nT(u_n)=0$$
              Apply $T^{-1}$ on both sides and get
              $$c_1u_1+cdots+c_nu_n=0$$
              and $c_1=cdots=c_n=0$ by assumption. Actually it is enough for $T$ to have a left inverse i.e. $T$ is injective.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                3












                $begingroup$

                In general, this isn't true as your counterexample shows.



                If $T$ is invertible then the statement holds. Start from
                $$c_1T(u_1)+cdots+c_nT(u_n)=0$$
                Apply $T^{-1}$ on both sides and get
                $$c_1u_1+cdots+c_nu_n=0$$
                and $c_1=cdots=c_n=0$ by assumption. Actually it is enough for $T$ to have a left inverse i.e. $T$ is injective.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  In general, this isn't true as your counterexample shows.



                  If $T$ is invertible then the statement holds. Start from
                  $$c_1T(u_1)+cdots+c_nT(u_n)=0$$
                  Apply $T^{-1}$ on both sides and get
                  $$c_1u_1+cdots+c_nu_n=0$$
                  and $c_1=cdots=c_n=0$ by assumption. Actually it is enough for $T$ to have a left inverse i.e. $T$ is injective.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  In general, this isn't true as your counterexample shows.



                  If $T$ is invertible then the statement holds. Start from
                  $$c_1T(u_1)+cdots+c_nT(u_n)=0$$
                  Apply $T^{-1}$ on both sides and get
                  $$c_1u_1+cdots+c_nu_n=0$$
                  and $c_1=cdots=c_n=0$ by assumption. Actually it is enough for $T$ to have a left inverse i.e. $T$ is injective.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 28 '18 at 17:23









                  Olivier MoschettaOlivier Moschetta

                  2,8311411




                  2,8311411






























                      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%2f3017410%2fif-u-1-u-n-is-a-linearly-independent-of-u-show-that-tu-1%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)

                      Image
                      2 2 I have a Zotero bibliography in Overleaf. I use biblatex . usepackage[backend=biber,citestyle=authoryear]{biblatex} addbibresource{zoteroALH.bib} Bibliography entries look like: @book{de_saint-gervais_uniformization_2016, title = {Uniformization of {Riemann} {Surfaces}}, isbn = {978-3-03719-145-3}, url = {https://www.ems-ph.org/books/book.php?proj_nr=198&srch=series%7Chem}, urldate = {2019-02-03}, author = {de Saint-Gervais, Paul Henri}, year = {2016}, doi = {10.4171/145} } In the bibliography down the paper the reference shows like this: There is the DOI, great, but also the URL which is unnecessary when the DOI is there. How can I remove the URL when the DOI is present? biblatex bibliographies overleaf zote
                      Read more

                      ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                      Image
                      2 I'm trying to set the .DisplayMember property of a ComboBox in C#, but I want to bind it to multiple columns in the .DataSouce . My SQL looks like this: SELECT PersNbr, PersFirstName, PersMiddleName, PersLastName FROM Pers WHERE PersNbr = :persNbr; I'm saving this query in a DataTable so each column selected has it's own column in the Datatable . I want to make the .DisplayMember a combination of PersFirstName + PersMiddleName + PersLastName so their full name appears like this: comboBox.DisplayMemeber = "PersFirstName" + "PersMiddleName" + "PersLastName" I know I can just to this on the query: SELECT PersNbr, (PersFirstName || PersMiddleName || PersLastName) PersName and then just do this: comboBox.DisplayMember = "PersName"; but I
                      Read more

                      Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?

                      Image
                      2 Since I am not eligible for any Railcard, the only available discount/bonus scheme is Nectar Card for me. GWR, SWR, LNER and Virgin Trains allow to collect Nectar points and I have already linked a card to my GWR account. A friend suggested me to use Trainline App, because it can search for bus tickets either. I had a look at the application, but could not see any option for Nectar. Is there a way to collect Nectar points when I buy tickets via Trainline? uk trains loyalty-programs trainline share | improve this question asked Dec 2 '18 at 15:50 ahmedus 3,224 5 19 49
                      Read more