This homework is due February 28.
1. From the textbook: Solve exercises 2.14, 3.3, 3.4, 3.9, 3.10, 3.16, 3.25.
2. a.Suppose that satisfies linearity (i.e., what the book calls additivity). Suppose also that
is continuous. Show that
is linear (i.e., it also satisfies homogeneity).
b. Give an example of a that is additive but not homogeneous.
3. The goal of this exercise is to state and prove the rank-nullity theorem (Theorem 3.4 from the book) without the assumption that is finite dimensional. What we want to show is that if
are vector spaces and
is linear, then
.
First, we need to make sense of . Recall that if
is a set, an equivalence relation
on
is a relation
such that:
for any
(reflexivity),
- Whenever
, then also
(symmetry),
- If
and
, then also
(transitivity).
Given such an equivalence relation, the equivalence class of an element is the subset
consisting of all those
such that
. The quotient
is the collection of all equivalence classes, so if
then there is some
such that
.
The point is that the equivalence classes form a partition of into pairwise disjoint, non-empty sets: Each
is nonempty, since
Clearly, the union of all the classes is
(again, because any
is in the class
), and if
, then in fact
(check this).
Ok. Back to . Define, in
, an equivalence relation
by:
iff
(Check that this is an equivalence relation). Then, as a set, we define
to be
. The reason why the null space is even mentioned here is because of the following (check this):
iff
.
We want to define addition in and scalar multiplication so that
is actually a vector space.
- Given
and
in
, set
, where if
and
, then
. The problem with this definition is that in general there may be infinitely many
such that
and infinitely many
such that
. In order for this definition to make sense, we need to prove that for any such
, we
. Show this.
- Given
, and a scalar
, define
, where if
, then
. As before, we need to check that this is well-defined, i.e., that if
, then also
.
- Check that
is indeed a vector space with the operations we just defined.
Now we want to define a linear transformation from to
, and argue that it is an isomorphism. Define
by
where
. Once again, check that this is well-defined. Also, check that this is indeed linear, and a bijection.
Finally, to see that this is the “right” version of Theorem 3.4, we want to verify that if
is finite dimensional. Prove this directly (i.e., without using the statement of Theorem 3.4).
Thanks, Tommy. I think it is fixed now.
Hi Dr. Caicedo,
I just want to point out a possible typo. I believe
is supposed to be 
May the Math Be With You!
Tommy