7
$\begingroup$

The dimension theorem (the rank-nullity theorem) can be explained in many ways. I consider it as a consequence of the first isomorphism theorem/splitting lemma. When I teach undergrad matrix-theoretic linear algebra, I start with the equation $Ax=b,$ and I tell my students that the dimension theorem basically says that the number of total variables equals the sum of the number of free variables and the number of "non-free" variables. They find this statement very easy. If I teach a "formal/proof-based" undergrad mathematics class, I tell my students that the dimension theorem basically tells us how much "stuff" we need to put inside the nullspaces to extend it to the given vector space.

Today I found a very good analogy: In some sense, the dimension theorem is the linear algebraic analog of the Pigeonhole Principle. Note that for any finite set $A,$ the function $f: A \rightarrow A$ is injective iff surjective iff bijective. It's a consequence of the Pigeonhole Principle. The dimension theorem gives a similar kind of conclusion for a finite-dimensional vector space $V,$ and any linear map $T: V \rightarrow V.$

Now, could you help me by providing a couple of more analogies that can be explained to an undergrad junior? Thank you so much. Please stay safe.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think that this is the kind of question which is most appropriate for the Math Educators SE. I am going to migrate it there. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Oct 22 '20 at 12:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Xander Henderson Thank you so much. $\endgroup$ – Boka Peer Oct 22 '20 at 12:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Any reason for specifying an undergraduate junior? (Third year of a four-year Bachelor's degree in the US and some other countries,) $\endgroup$ – J W Oct 22 '20 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ I have tried to mean that the students who don't have much mathematics background. Previously I have seen that some junior/seniors take their first proof-based linear algebra class. I am sorry for not clarifying things I intended to mean. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Boka Peer Oct 23 '20 at 4:24
1
$\begingroup$

It seems to me that a discussion of how to make any function $f: A \rightarrow B$ into a bijection might be in order. First, we can deal with onto by replacing $B$ with $f(A)$. So, let $g: A \rightarrow f(A)$ be the function given by $g(x)=f(x)$ for each $x \in A$. Next, we may need to make the domain smaller, for each non-empty fiber $$f^{-1} \{ b \} = \{ a \in A \ | \ f(a)=b \} $$ we should select one point. Let the collection of all such points be $S$. Define $h: S \rightarrow f(A)$ by $h(x)=f(x)$ for each $x \in S$. If $x,y \in S$ and $h(x)=h(y)$ then $f(x)=f(y)$ hence there exists $b \in B$ for which $x,y \in f^{-1}\{ b \}$. But, by construction of $S$, we have $x=y$. That is, $h$ is injective.

The innocent little step of selecting one point is rather difficult for arbitrary functions. In contrast, for linear transformations each fiber of the domain is an affine subspace. In particular, $T: V \rightarrow W$ has $$ T^{-1}\{ w \} = \{ x \in V \ | \ T(x)=w \} $$ If $x,y \in T^{-1}\{ w \}$ then $T(x)=w=T(y)$ hence $T(y-x)=0$ and so $y-x \in \text{Ker}(T)$. That is, $y = x+z$ where $z \in \text{Ker}(T)$. Indeed, $$ T^{-1}\{ w \} = x + \text{Ker}(T) $$ where $T(x)=w$. This is a very interesting equation because it means all the fibers of $T$ are the same size as $\text{Ker}(T)$. Ok, it's better than that, $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^2$ have the same size, but they have different dimension. The dimension of the fibers of a linear map are all the same. Of course, the only way $T$ can be injective is for the size of these fibers to shrink to a single element, in turn that means the kernel must be zero dimensional.

The linear algebraic proof that a linear map $T: V \rightarrow W$ has $$\text{dim}(V) = \text{dim}( \text{Ker}(T))+ \text{dim}( \text{Image}(T))$$ is anchored to basis extension arguments. The basis for the kernel in $V$ is extended to those vectors outside the kernel. Then, those vectors outside the kernel have an image in $W$ which serves to generate $T(V)$. If $V=W$ then the only way the vectors outside the kernel can generate $T(V)=V$ is for there to be no vectors in the kernel (except zero).

I'm posting this in the hope that my answer might spur someone else to a better answer.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EmmyRahman I really like questions like the one you ask. I don't think I actually answered your question :) $\endgroup$ – James S. Cook Oct 25 '20 at 3:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.