#Linear transformation or not

132 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

snow perch
#

is the given transformation linear or not

desert coyoteBOT
#
  1. Ask your question and show the work you've done so far. If you've posted a screenshot of a question, specify which part you need help with.
  2. Wait patiently for a helper to come along.
  3. Once someone helps you, say thank you and close the thread with:
    +close
    
  4. Feel free to nominate the person for helper of the week in #helper-nominations
  5. Do not ping the mods, unless someone is breaking the rules.
  6. If you're happy with the help you got here, and the server overall, you can contribute financially as well:
amber burrow
snow perch
#

(0,-1)

amber burrow
#

Yep it isn’t (0,0)

snow perch
#

so its not

#

right ?

amber burrow
#

Yes

#

Because if it was F(0,0)=(0,0)

snow perch
#

cause even the transformation of each vectors in a vector addition is not equals to the linear transformation of the whole vector addition

snow perch
#

also can u help

#

with singularity

proven condorBOT
#

@snow perch has given 1 rep to @amber burrow

amber burrow
#

Im not familiar with the term does it mean that the null space is non reduced to (0,0)?

snow perch
#

that only the null subspace can have a null image

#

no other subspaces

#

can have a null subspace

#

and also F inverse transformation also exist

#

and F F^-1 = I

#

where I is identity

amber burrow
#

Well it isn’t even a linear transformation so can you even define it

snow perch
#

hmmm

#

yeah

#

its not singular

#

then

#

thankyou sm

snow perch
#

i said here

#

is for non singular

#

not for singular

#

singular is opposite

amber burrow
#

Okay I see

snow perch
#

a non zero subspace may have a null image and inverse F does not exist --> singular

#

F F^-1 is not equal to identity

#

this all is for singular

amber burrow
#

It’s basically just that it has a non zero null space

amber burrow
snow perch
#

ohhhh

#

makes sense

#

i see

#

thanks sm

amber burrow
snow perch
#

also can I continue posting questions here , or do i have to create a new forum for that

amber burrow
#

Hmmm I don’t really know but I think you can post here

snow perch
#

oh iseee

#

thanks

#

wait

amber burrow
#

Check if there is stability and if each element has an inverse in S

snow perch
#

but for group i remmeber

#

theres just one operation

#

and we check its associative under that , additive inverse, identity element

amber burrow
#

No here you need to check if it’s a group for x

snow perch
#

right ?

amber burrow
#

You can check if it’s a subgroup of Gl2(C)

amber burrow
snow perch
#

i see htankss

#

lemme

amber burrow
#

Calculate A x B

snow perch
#

here there are 4 elements, but for associative , we just need 3

#

smh

snow perch
#

then ?

amber burrow
#

Well is it in S?

snow perch
#

lemme chec

#

its not

#

its making the B matrix

#

but interchange

#

0 and iota

#

that matrix its making

#

okay it follows one of

#

em

#

it has an identity element whihc is the identitty matrix

#

lemme chec other

amber burrow
#

Here you should get A x B=iC

#

Which isn’t in S

#

So what can you conclude ?

snow perch
#

uhmmm

snow perch
#

uhmm

amber burrow
#

What properties does a group have to satisfy ?

snow perch
#

associatve under operation

#

existence of identity element under operation

#

existence of operative inverse

amber burrow
#

Yes but you forgot one

snow perch
#

commutative under operation ( optional)

amber burrow
#

Stability

snow perch
#

ohh

#

thats not given in our book

amber burrow
#

So here is it stable under multiplication ?

snow perch
#

what does stability means

amber burrow
snow perch
#

closuree

#

i get it now

#

but wasnt it for vector spaces

#

and maybe fields as well

amber burrow
#

So if A and B are in S A x B must be in S

snow perch
#

ohh I see

amber burrow
snow perch
#

yeahh

#

its a albenian group

#

or whatever that s called

amber burrow
#

Yep

amber burrow
snow perch
#

they have used closure

#

in this proof

#

but why didnt they tell

#

in

#

the properties

amber burrow
#

Well because closure isn’t a property of the group itself but the inner operation

#

So x for S

snow perch
#

I see

#

thankss

#

lemme do it

amber burrow
#

You’re very welcome !

snow perch
#

okay i was afk

#

thanks sm tho

amber burrow
#

You could’ve also proved that the inverse of B isnt in S if you wanted

snow perch
#

ohh yesss

#

its not

amber burrow
#

Yes

#

Both work

deep gyro
# snow perch the properties

Yeah, conventions differ on that. Some people list closure as an "axiom", but it's usually redundent. Typeically a group is defined as something like

A group is a set G together with an operation (⋅) on G such that ...
so to make sure a definition is a group, you need to check that (⋅) really is an operation on G (which closure is a part of)

#

so to check if a definition is a group, you have to check that the operation is well-defined and satisfies closure, as well as the group axioms

snow perch
#

oh i seee thanks