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).

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, February 11th, 2011 at 4:13 pm and is filed under 403/503: Linear Algebra II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

(As I pointed out in a comment) yes, partial Woodinness is common in arguments in inner model theory. Accordingly, you obtain determinacy results addressing specific pointclasses (typically, well beyond projective). To illustrate this, let me "randomly" highlight two examples: See here for $\Sigma^1_2$-Woodin cardinals and, more generally, the noti […]

I am not sure which statement you heard as the "Ultimate $L$ axiom," but I will assume it is the following version: There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals, and for all sentences $\varphi$ that hold in $V$, there is a universally Baire set $A\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ such that, letting $\theta=\Theta^{L(A,{\mathbb R})}$, we have that $HOD^{L(A,{\ma […]

A Wadge initial segment (of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$) is a subset $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ such that whenever $A\in\Gamma$ and $B\le_W A$, where $\le_W$ denotes Wadge reducibility, then $B\in\Gamma$. Note that if $\Gamma\subseteq\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ and $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models \Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$, then $\Gamma$ is a Wadge initial se […]

Craig: For a while, there was some research on improving bounds on the number of variables or degree of unsolvable Diophantine equations. Unfortunately, I never got around to cataloging the known results in any systematic way, so all I can offer is some pointers to relevant references, but I am not sure of what the current records are. Perhaps the first pape […]

Yes. Consider, for instance, Conway's base 13 function $c$, or any function that is everywhere discontinuous and has range $\mathbb R$ in every interval. Pick continuous bijections $f_n:\mathbb R\to(-1/n,1/n)$ for $n\in\mathbb N^+$. Pick a strictly decreasing sequence $(x_n)_{n\ge1}$ converging to $0$. Define $f$ by setting $f(x)=0$ if $x=0$ or $\pm x_n […]

All proofs of the Bernstein-Cantor-Schroeder theorem that I know either directly or with very little work produce an explicit bijection from any given pair of injections. There is an obvious injection from $[0,1]$ to $C[0,1]$ mapping each $t$ to the function constantly equal to $t$, so the question reduces to finding an explicit injection from $C[0,1]$ to $[ […]

One way we formalize this "limitation" idea is via interpretative power. John Steel describes this approach carefully in several places, so you may want to read what he says, in particular at Solomon Feferman, Harvey M. Friedman, Penelope Maddy, and John R. Steel. Does mathematics need new axioms?, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6 (4), (2000), 401 […]

"There are" examples of discontinuous homomorphisms between Banach algebras. However, the quotes are there because the question is independent of the usual axioms of set theory. I quote from the introduction to W. Hugh Woodin, "A discontinuous homomorphism from $C(X)$ without CH", J. London Math. Soc. (2) 48 (1993), no. 2, 299-315, MR1231 […]

This is Hausdorff's formula. Recall that $\tau^\lambda$ is the cardinality of the set ${}^\lambda\tau$ of functions $f\!:\lambda\to\tau$, and that $\kappa^+$ is regular for all $\kappa$. Now, there are two possibilities: If $\alpha\ge\tau$, then $2^\alpha\le\tau^\alpha\le(2^\alpha)^\alpha=2^\alpha$, so $\tau^\alpha=2^\alpha$. In particular, if $\alpha\g […]

Fix a model $M$ of a theory for which it makes sense to talk about $\omega$ ($M$ does not need to be a model of set theory, it could even be simply an ordered set with a minimum in which every element has an immediate successor and every element other than the minimum has an immediate predecessor; in this case we could identify $\omega^M$ with $M$ itself). W […]

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