Finding an explicit isomorphism between $mathbb R^4 / ker T$ and $mathbb R^2$











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I'm wondering if I have a valid answer to this.



It is exactly (e) of the following:



enter image description here



I first state that the two vector spaces are isomorphic because they have equal dimension. I then define a linear transform $S: mathbb R^4 / Ker T to mathbb R^2$ by



$$S begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix} to
begin{pmatrix}
a \
b \
end{pmatrix}: a,b in mathbb R$$



Where $begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix}$
is an arbitrary element in the departure space.



If this mapping translates basis to basis, this is an isomorphism.



$$
S begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix} to
begin{pmatrix}
a \
b \
end{pmatrix} in mathbb R^2 implies Sleft(a begin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
0 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} +
bbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
0 \
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix}right) = a vec e_1 + b vec e_2 $$

$$
text{ as
$Sbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
0 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} =
begin{pmatrix}
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix}$ and
$
Sbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
0 \
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} =
begin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
end{pmatrix}$}$$



Is this a valid answer?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • What is $F$? Is it $mathbb R$?
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 18:48










  • @JoséCarlosSantos an arbitrary field. I should’ve specified, my bad.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 18:49










  • But you mention $mathbb R$ in the title.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 18:50










  • Yes, I’ll correct that.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 18:52















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I'm wondering if I have a valid answer to this.



It is exactly (e) of the following:



enter image description here



I first state that the two vector spaces are isomorphic because they have equal dimension. I then define a linear transform $S: mathbb R^4 / Ker T to mathbb R^2$ by



$$S begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix} to
begin{pmatrix}
a \
b \
end{pmatrix}: a,b in mathbb R$$



Where $begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix}$
is an arbitrary element in the departure space.



If this mapping translates basis to basis, this is an isomorphism.



$$
S begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix} to
begin{pmatrix}
a \
b \
end{pmatrix} in mathbb R^2 implies Sleft(a begin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
0 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} +
bbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
0 \
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix}right) = a vec e_1 + b vec e_2 $$

$$
text{ as
$Sbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
0 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} =
begin{pmatrix}
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix}$ and
$
Sbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
0 \
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} =
begin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
end{pmatrix}$}$$



Is this a valid answer?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • What is $F$? Is it $mathbb R$?
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 18:48










  • @JoséCarlosSantos an arbitrary field. I should’ve specified, my bad.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 18:49










  • But you mention $mathbb R$ in the title.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 18:50










  • Yes, I’ll correct that.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 18:52













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I'm wondering if I have a valid answer to this.



It is exactly (e) of the following:



enter image description here



I first state that the two vector spaces are isomorphic because they have equal dimension. I then define a linear transform $S: mathbb R^4 / Ker T to mathbb R^2$ by



$$S begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix} to
begin{pmatrix}
a \
b \
end{pmatrix}: a,b in mathbb R$$



Where $begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix}$
is an arbitrary element in the departure space.



If this mapping translates basis to basis, this is an isomorphism.



$$
S begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix} to
begin{pmatrix}
a \
b \
end{pmatrix} in mathbb R^2 implies Sleft(a begin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
0 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} +
bbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
0 \
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix}right) = a vec e_1 + b vec e_2 $$

$$
text{ as
$Sbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
0 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} =
begin{pmatrix}
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix}$ and
$
Sbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
0 \
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} =
begin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
end{pmatrix}$}$$



Is this a valid answer?










share|cite|improve this question















I'm wondering if I have a valid answer to this.



It is exactly (e) of the following:



enter image description here



I first state that the two vector spaces are isomorphic because they have equal dimension. I then define a linear transform $S: mathbb R^4 / Ker T to mathbb R^2$ by



$$S begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix} to
begin{pmatrix}
a \
b \
end{pmatrix}: a,b in mathbb R$$



Where $begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix}$
is an arbitrary element in the departure space.



If this mapping translates basis to basis, this is an isomorphism.



$$
S begin{pmatrix}
0 \
a \
b \
0 \
end{pmatrix} to
begin{pmatrix}
a \
b \
end{pmatrix} in mathbb R^2 implies Sleft(a begin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
0 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} +
bbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
0 \
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix}right) = a vec e_1 + b vec e_2 $$

$$
text{ as
$Sbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
0 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} =
begin{pmatrix}
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix}$ and
$
Sbegin{pmatrix}
0 \
0 \
1 \
0 \
end{pmatrix} =
begin{pmatrix}
0 \
1 \
end{pmatrix}$}$$



Is this a valid answer?







proof-verification quotient-spaces vector-space-isomorphism






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 17 at 19:41









Bernard

116k637108




116k637108










asked Nov 17 at 18:36









sangstar

838214




838214












  • What is $F$? Is it $mathbb R$?
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 18:48










  • @JoséCarlosSantos an arbitrary field. I should’ve specified, my bad.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 18:49










  • But you mention $mathbb R$ in the title.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 18:50










  • Yes, I’ll correct that.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 18:52


















  • What is $F$? Is it $mathbb R$?
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 18:48










  • @JoséCarlosSantos an arbitrary field. I should’ve specified, my bad.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 18:49










  • But you mention $mathbb R$ in the title.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 18:50










  • Yes, I’ll correct that.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 18:52
















What is $F$? Is it $mathbb R$?
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 17 at 18:48




What is $F$? Is it $mathbb R$?
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 17 at 18:48












@JoséCarlosSantos an arbitrary field. I should’ve specified, my bad.
– sangstar
Nov 17 at 18:49




@JoséCarlosSantos an arbitrary field. I should’ve specified, my bad.
– sangstar
Nov 17 at 18:49












But you mention $mathbb R$ in the title.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 17 at 18:50




But you mention $mathbb R$ in the title.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 17 at 18:50












Yes, I’ll correct that.
– sangstar
Nov 17 at 18:52




Yes, I’ll correct that.
– sangstar
Nov 17 at 18:52










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













Your answer is not valid, since you don't even mention $F^4/ker T$ in it. An explicit isomorphism would be$$begin{array}{rccc}Psicolon&F^4/ker T&longrightarrow&F^2\&begin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}+ker T&mapsto&Tbegin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}.end{array}$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Forgive me, I’m confused. Can you explain in more detail why, if I did mention what I didn’t mention, why it’s still not a valid answer? An why yours is a valid explicit isomorphism?
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:02












  • FIrst of all, there are two maps called $T$ in your answer. Not a good idea. Besides, you just claim that the domain of your second $T$ is $F^4/ker T$, but it is actually a subspace of $F^4$.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 19:06












  • Oh, you’re right. This exercise was a follow up to a previous exercise with defined $T$ such that the quotient space ended up being what I represented. I will update the question presently with the missing info.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:09











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002669%2ffinding-an-explicit-isomorphism-between-mathbb-r4-ker-t-and-mathbb-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













Your answer is not valid, since you don't even mention $F^4/ker T$ in it. An explicit isomorphism would be$$begin{array}{rccc}Psicolon&F^4/ker T&longrightarrow&F^2\&begin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}+ker T&mapsto&Tbegin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}.end{array}$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Forgive me, I’m confused. Can you explain in more detail why, if I did mention what I didn’t mention, why it’s still not a valid answer? An why yours is a valid explicit isomorphism?
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:02












  • FIrst of all, there are two maps called $T$ in your answer. Not a good idea. Besides, you just claim that the domain of your second $T$ is $F^4/ker T$, but it is actually a subspace of $F^4$.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 19:06












  • Oh, you’re right. This exercise was a follow up to a previous exercise with defined $T$ such that the quotient space ended up being what I represented. I will update the question presently with the missing info.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:09















up vote
0
down vote













Your answer is not valid, since you don't even mention $F^4/ker T$ in it. An explicit isomorphism would be$$begin{array}{rccc}Psicolon&F^4/ker T&longrightarrow&F^2\&begin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}+ker T&mapsto&Tbegin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}.end{array}$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Forgive me, I’m confused. Can you explain in more detail why, if I did mention what I didn’t mention, why it’s still not a valid answer? An why yours is a valid explicit isomorphism?
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:02












  • FIrst of all, there are two maps called $T$ in your answer. Not a good idea. Besides, you just claim that the domain of your second $T$ is $F^4/ker T$, but it is actually a subspace of $F^4$.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 19:06












  • Oh, you’re right. This exercise was a follow up to a previous exercise with defined $T$ such that the quotient space ended up being what I represented. I will update the question presently with the missing info.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:09













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









Your answer is not valid, since you don't even mention $F^4/ker T$ in it. An explicit isomorphism would be$$begin{array}{rccc}Psicolon&F^4/ker T&longrightarrow&F^2\&begin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}+ker T&mapsto&Tbegin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}.end{array}$$






share|cite|improve this answer












Your answer is not valid, since you don't even mention $F^4/ker T$ in it. An explicit isomorphism would be$$begin{array}{rccc}Psicolon&F^4/ker T&longrightarrow&F^2\&begin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}+ker T&mapsto&Tbegin{pmatrix}a\b\c\dend{pmatrix}.end{array}$$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 17 at 18:59









José Carlos Santos

142k20112208




142k20112208












  • Forgive me, I’m confused. Can you explain in more detail why, if I did mention what I didn’t mention, why it’s still not a valid answer? An why yours is a valid explicit isomorphism?
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:02












  • FIrst of all, there are two maps called $T$ in your answer. Not a good idea. Besides, you just claim that the domain of your second $T$ is $F^4/ker T$, but it is actually a subspace of $F^4$.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 19:06












  • Oh, you’re right. This exercise was a follow up to a previous exercise with defined $T$ such that the quotient space ended up being what I represented. I will update the question presently with the missing info.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:09


















  • Forgive me, I’m confused. Can you explain in more detail why, if I did mention what I didn’t mention, why it’s still not a valid answer? An why yours is a valid explicit isomorphism?
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:02












  • FIrst of all, there are two maps called $T$ in your answer. Not a good idea. Besides, you just claim that the domain of your second $T$ is $F^4/ker T$, but it is actually a subspace of $F^4$.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 17 at 19:06












  • Oh, you’re right. This exercise was a follow up to a previous exercise with defined $T$ such that the quotient space ended up being what I represented. I will update the question presently with the missing info.
    – sangstar
    Nov 17 at 19:09
















Forgive me, I’m confused. Can you explain in more detail why, if I did mention what I didn’t mention, why it’s still not a valid answer? An why yours is a valid explicit isomorphism?
– sangstar
Nov 17 at 19:02






Forgive me, I’m confused. Can you explain in more detail why, if I did mention what I didn’t mention, why it’s still not a valid answer? An why yours is a valid explicit isomorphism?
– sangstar
Nov 17 at 19:02














FIrst of all, there are two maps called $T$ in your answer. Not a good idea. Besides, you just claim that the domain of your second $T$ is $F^4/ker T$, but it is actually a subspace of $F^4$.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 17 at 19:06






FIrst of all, there are two maps called $T$ in your answer. Not a good idea. Besides, you just claim that the domain of your second $T$ is $F^4/ker T$, but it is actually a subspace of $F^4$.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 17 at 19:06














Oh, you’re right. This exercise was a follow up to a previous exercise with defined $T$ such that the quotient space ended up being what I represented. I will update the question presently with the missing info.
– sangstar
Nov 17 at 19:09




Oh, you’re right. This exercise was a follow up to a previous exercise with defined $T$ such that the quotient space ended up being what I represented. I will update the question presently with the missing info.
– sangstar
Nov 17 at 19:09


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002669%2ffinding-an-explicit-isomorphism-between-mathbb-r4-ker-t-and-mathbb-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

When does type information flow backwards in C++?

Grease: Live!