Homepage › Solution manuals › Stephen Friedberg › Linear Algebra › Exercise 2.1.1
Exercise 2.1.1
Answers
- 1.
- Yes. That’s the definition.
- 2.
- No. Consider a map from over to over by letting . Then we have but .
- 3.
- No. This is right when
is a linear trasformation but not right in general. For example,
It’s one-to-one but that means . For the counterexample of converse statement, consider .
- 4.
- Yes. We have , for arbitrary .
- 5.
- No. It is dim. For example, the transformation mapping the real line to will be.
- 6.
- No. We can map a vector to zero.
- 7.
- Yes. This is the Corollory after Theorem 2.6.
- 8.
- No. If , then must be .
2011-06-27 00:00