Linear transformations : Show that... see attachment
Could you recall what linearly independent means?
Linear independence is just such that any one vector in the set, isn't a linear combination of the other vectors? I still do not know how to prove, that after a linear transformation, all vectors are still independent
Well then, let's see, shall we? We know that v1, v2, v3... vr are linearly independent, right?
Still there? You need to pay attention to the details here...
Yes
Okay, so let's check their respective images under the linear transformation... Consider T(v1), T(v2), T(v3), ... T(vr) catch me so far?
Yes
Okay, so, let's proceed by contradiction :) Suppose there is a linear combination of these vectors that produce the zero vector: a1T(v1) + a2T(v2) + ... + arT(vr) = 0 still with me?
okay
Well, what do we know about the linear transformations (such as T) We know that constants can move in and out of the transformation: aT(v) = T(av) right?
Yep
Okay, so this equation a1T(v1) + a2T(v2) + ... + arT(vr) = 0 May be written as: T(a1 v1) + T(a2 v2) + ... + T(ar vr) = 0 yes?
Yes
Well, maybe you can proceed from here? Perhaps use the other property of linear transformations...
@dw3 well?
I don't think I understand
Okay, so another property of linear transformations (which you forgot -_-) is this: T(u) + T(v) = T(u+v)
T(a1v1+⋯+arvr)=0 But what does this mean :/
Well, in a linear transformation, ONLY the zero vector could be mapped to the zero vector, right?
Here, let me prove it. Suppose we want to find T(0) T(0) = T(v - v) = T(v) - T(v) = 0
Ah! i get it
So, This implies that a1v1 + a2v2 + ... arvr = 0 And this is...?
linearly dependent?
a contradiction, silly :> Didn't we just assume that v1, v2, ...vr are linearly independent?
oh, >.< Thanks a lot!
Wait a minute, there might be a slight problem....
We have to assume that the transformation T is at least injective, otherwise, this won't work....
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!