Is $ f(A) = A + 2A^{T} $ an isomorphism of $ mathbb R^{5,5} $ onto itself?












5














I have problem with prove or disprove this hypothesis:




Is the linear transformation $ f in L(mathbb R^{5,5},mathbb R^{5,5}) $
$$ f(A) = A + 2A^{T} $$
an isomorphism of the space $ mathbb R^{5,5} $ onto itself?




In order to be an isomorphism, $f$ must be injective and surjective.



Checking if it is surjective:



Assume that as a result we want to get:
$$mathbf{Q} =
begin{bmatrix}
q_{11} & q_{12} & cdots & q_{1n} \
q_{21} & q_{22} & cdots & q_{2n} \
vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots \
q_{m1} & q_{m2} & cdots & q_{mn}
end{bmatrix} $$



and we put as argument $$ mathbf{A} =
begin{bmatrix}
a_{11} & a_{12} & cdots & a_{1n} \
a_{21} & a_{22} & cdots & a_{2n} \
vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots \
a_{m1} & a_{m2} & cdots & a_{mn}
end{bmatrix} $$

then choose $i,j$. Factors $a_{ij}$ $a_{ji}$ $q_{ij}$ $q_{ji}$ are only in this linear system:
$$q_{ij} = a_{ij} + 2a_{ji} wedge q_{ji} = a_{ji} + 2a_{ij}$$
so $$ a_{ij} = frac{2q_{ij}-q_{ji}}{3} $$ and $$ a_{ji} = frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3} $$
so the factors $ a_{ij}$ $ a_{ji}$ are determined unambiguously. So it is surjective.



But how to deal with checking injectivity?



Suppose that $$ A+2A^T=B+2B^T $$
$$ A-B = 2(A^T-B^T) $$
and I don't know how to finish that.










share|cite|improve this question





























    5














    I have problem with prove or disprove this hypothesis:




    Is the linear transformation $ f in L(mathbb R^{5,5},mathbb R^{5,5}) $
    $$ f(A) = A + 2A^{T} $$
    an isomorphism of the space $ mathbb R^{5,5} $ onto itself?




    In order to be an isomorphism, $f$ must be injective and surjective.



    Checking if it is surjective:



    Assume that as a result we want to get:
    $$mathbf{Q} =
    begin{bmatrix}
    q_{11} & q_{12} & cdots & q_{1n} \
    q_{21} & q_{22} & cdots & q_{2n} \
    vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots \
    q_{m1} & q_{m2} & cdots & q_{mn}
    end{bmatrix} $$



    and we put as argument $$ mathbf{A} =
    begin{bmatrix}
    a_{11} & a_{12} & cdots & a_{1n} \
    a_{21} & a_{22} & cdots & a_{2n} \
    vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots \
    a_{m1} & a_{m2} & cdots & a_{mn}
    end{bmatrix} $$

    then choose $i,j$. Factors $a_{ij}$ $a_{ji}$ $q_{ij}$ $q_{ji}$ are only in this linear system:
    $$q_{ij} = a_{ij} + 2a_{ji} wedge q_{ji} = a_{ji} + 2a_{ij}$$
    so $$ a_{ij} = frac{2q_{ij}-q_{ji}}{3} $$ and $$ a_{ji} = frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3} $$
    so the factors $ a_{ij}$ $ a_{ji}$ are determined unambiguously. So it is surjective.



    But how to deal with checking injectivity?



    Suppose that $$ A+2A^T=B+2B^T $$
    $$ A-B = 2(A^T-B^T) $$
    and I don't know how to finish that.










    share|cite|improve this question



























      5












      5








      5


      0





      I have problem with prove or disprove this hypothesis:




      Is the linear transformation $ f in L(mathbb R^{5,5},mathbb R^{5,5}) $
      $$ f(A) = A + 2A^{T} $$
      an isomorphism of the space $ mathbb R^{5,5} $ onto itself?




      In order to be an isomorphism, $f$ must be injective and surjective.



      Checking if it is surjective:



      Assume that as a result we want to get:
      $$mathbf{Q} =
      begin{bmatrix}
      q_{11} & q_{12} & cdots & q_{1n} \
      q_{21} & q_{22} & cdots & q_{2n} \
      vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots \
      q_{m1} & q_{m2} & cdots & q_{mn}
      end{bmatrix} $$



      and we put as argument $$ mathbf{A} =
      begin{bmatrix}
      a_{11} & a_{12} & cdots & a_{1n} \
      a_{21} & a_{22} & cdots & a_{2n} \
      vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots \
      a_{m1} & a_{m2} & cdots & a_{mn}
      end{bmatrix} $$

      then choose $i,j$. Factors $a_{ij}$ $a_{ji}$ $q_{ij}$ $q_{ji}$ are only in this linear system:
      $$q_{ij} = a_{ij} + 2a_{ji} wedge q_{ji} = a_{ji} + 2a_{ij}$$
      so $$ a_{ij} = frac{2q_{ij}-q_{ji}}{3} $$ and $$ a_{ji} = frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3} $$
      so the factors $ a_{ij}$ $ a_{ji}$ are determined unambiguously. So it is surjective.



      But how to deal with checking injectivity?



      Suppose that $$ A+2A^T=B+2B^T $$
      $$ A-B = 2(A^T-B^T) $$
      and I don't know how to finish that.










      share|cite|improve this question















      I have problem with prove or disprove this hypothesis:




      Is the linear transformation $ f in L(mathbb R^{5,5},mathbb R^{5,5}) $
      $$ f(A) = A + 2A^{T} $$
      an isomorphism of the space $ mathbb R^{5,5} $ onto itself?




      In order to be an isomorphism, $f$ must be injective and surjective.



      Checking if it is surjective:



      Assume that as a result we want to get:
      $$mathbf{Q} =
      begin{bmatrix}
      q_{11} & q_{12} & cdots & q_{1n} \
      q_{21} & q_{22} & cdots & q_{2n} \
      vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots \
      q_{m1} & q_{m2} & cdots & q_{mn}
      end{bmatrix} $$



      and we put as argument $$ mathbf{A} =
      begin{bmatrix}
      a_{11} & a_{12} & cdots & a_{1n} \
      a_{21} & a_{22} & cdots & a_{2n} \
      vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots \
      a_{m1} & a_{m2} & cdots & a_{mn}
      end{bmatrix} $$

      then choose $i,j$. Factors $a_{ij}$ $a_{ji}$ $q_{ij}$ $q_{ji}$ are only in this linear system:
      $$q_{ij} = a_{ij} + 2a_{ji} wedge q_{ji} = a_{ji} + 2a_{ij}$$
      so $$ a_{ij} = frac{2q_{ij}-q_{ji}}{3} $$ and $$ a_{ji} = frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3} $$
      so the factors $ a_{ij}$ $ a_{ji}$ are determined unambiguously. So it is surjective.



      But how to deal with checking injectivity?



      Suppose that $$ A+2A^T=B+2B^T $$
      $$ A-B = 2(A^T-B^T) $$
      and I don't know how to finish that.







      linear-algebra matrices vector-space-isomorphism






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 4 at 21:23









      greedoid

      38.6k114797




      38.6k114797










      asked Jan 4 at 21:01









      VirtualUserVirtualUser

      56712




      56712






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6














          Hint:



          Check if the kernel of this transformation is trivial. This is enough to establish if it is isomorphism:
          $$begin{eqnarray}
          f(A) =0
          &implies &A=-2A^T \
          &implies &A^T=(-2A^T)^T \
          &implies &A^T = -2A \
          &implies &A =4A \
          &implies &A=0
          end{eqnarray}
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • By trivial you mean $ vec{0} $?
            – VirtualUser
            Jan 4 at 21:06










          • Yes, that is correct.
            – greedoid
            Jan 4 at 21:06










          • Chm.. can you explain this step? $ A^T = -2A rightarrow A =4A $
            – VirtualUser
            Jan 4 at 21:13












          • Just plug second line in first
            – greedoid
            Jan 4 at 21:14










          • Ahh, that's great, but unfortunately I can't use that because I haven't got this theorem on my lecture... But it is really smart
            – VirtualUser
            Jan 4 at 21:15





















          2














          You have $A-B = 2(A-B)^top$.
          This implies $a_{ij} - b_{ij} = 2 (a_{ji} - b_{ji}) = 4(a_{ij} - b_{ij})$, so...






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            1














            You're already done. Since the map is from $mathbb R^{5times 5}$ to $mathbb R^{5times 5}$, checking that it's surjective (that it has full rank) also tells you that it's injective (that it has nullity $0$) by the rank-nullity theorem.






            share|cite|improve this answer





























              0














              Hint:



              It suffices to check that $f$ is surjective. For any matrix $B$ we have
              $$fleft(-frac13B + frac23B^Tright) = B$$





              It you are wondering how we got this, assume $A+2A^T = B$. Then $A^T + 2A = B^T$ so $$B + B^T = 3(A+A^T)$$
              Now it follows $$A = B^T - (A+A^T) = B^T - frac13(B + B^T) = -frac13B + frac23B^T$$






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • This seems to already be contained in the question post.
                – Misha Lavrov
                Jan 4 at 21:30










              • @MishaLavrov Oops, I missed it. Still, here it is done slightly cleaner, without coordinates.
                – mechanodroid
                Jan 4 at 21:31



















              0














              When you say
              $$
              a_{ij}=frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3}
              $$

              (I fixed the indices) is “determined unambiguously”, you have proved both surjectivity and injectivity. There is at most one matrix $mathbf{A}$ such that $f(mathbf{A})=mathbf{Q}$. And there is one, determined in the way you did (after fixing the small mistake).





              On the other hand, a linear map $Lcolon Vto V$, where $V$ is a finite dimensional vector space, is injective if and only if it is surjective, because of the rank-nullity theorem. Therefore just one of the properties needs to be checked for.



              You don't need to go to the level of matrix entries in order to prove surjectivity. Given $Q$ you want to find $A$ such that $f(A)=Q$, that is, $A+2A^T=Q$. If such matrix exists, then also
              $$
              A^T+2A=Q^T
              $$

              and so $2A^T+4A=2Q^T$; thus
              $$
              Q-2Q^T=A+2A^T-2A^T-4A=-3A
              $$

              so
              $$
              A=frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)
              $$

              is the only possible one. Since
              $$
              fleft(frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)right)=Q
              $$

              as it can be readily checked, you have surjectivity and injectivity.



              Checking directly for injectivity is easier, though.






              share|cite|improve this answer





















                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',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                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%2f3062109%2fis-fa-a-2at-an-isomorphism-of-mathbb-r5-5-onto-itself%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes








                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                6














                Hint:



                Check if the kernel of this transformation is trivial. This is enough to establish if it is isomorphism:
                $$begin{eqnarray}
                f(A) =0
                &implies &A=-2A^T \
                &implies &A^T=(-2A^T)^T \
                &implies &A^T = -2A \
                &implies &A =4A \
                &implies &A=0
                end{eqnarray}
                $$






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • By trivial you mean $ vec{0} $?
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:06










                • Yes, that is correct.
                  – greedoid
                  Jan 4 at 21:06










                • Chm.. can you explain this step? $ A^T = -2A rightarrow A =4A $
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:13












                • Just plug second line in first
                  – greedoid
                  Jan 4 at 21:14










                • Ahh, that's great, but unfortunately I can't use that because I haven't got this theorem on my lecture... But it is really smart
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:15


















                6














                Hint:



                Check if the kernel of this transformation is trivial. This is enough to establish if it is isomorphism:
                $$begin{eqnarray}
                f(A) =0
                &implies &A=-2A^T \
                &implies &A^T=(-2A^T)^T \
                &implies &A^T = -2A \
                &implies &A =4A \
                &implies &A=0
                end{eqnarray}
                $$






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • By trivial you mean $ vec{0} $?
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:06










                • Yes, that is correct.
                  – greedoid
                  Jan 4 at 21:06










                • Chm.. can you explain this step? $ A^T = -2A rightarrow A =4A $
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:13












                • Just plug second line in first
                  – greedoid
                  Jan 4 at 21:14










                • Ahh, that's great, but unfortunately I can't use that because I haven't got this theorem on my lecture... But it is really smart
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:15
















                6












                6








                6






                Hint:



                Check if the kernel of this transformation is trivial. This is enough to establish if it is isomorphism:
                $$begin{eqnarray}
                f(A) =0
                &implies &A=-2A^T \
                &implies &A^T=(-2A^T)^T \
                &implies &A^T = -2A \
                &implies &A =4A \
                &implies &A=0
                end{eqnarray}
                $$






                share|cite|improve this answer














                Hint:



                Check if the kernel of this transformation is trivial. This is enough to establish if it is isomorphism:
                $$begin{eqnarray}
                f(A) =0
                &implies &A=-2A^T \
                &implies &A^T=(-2A^T)^T \
                &implies &A^T = -2A \
                &implies &A =4A \
                &implies &A=0
                end{eqnarray}
                $$







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Jan 4 at 21:17

























                answered Jan 4 at 21:04









                greedoidgreedoid

                38.6k114797




                38.6k114797












                • By trivial you mean $ vec{0} $?
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:06










                • Yes, that is correct.
                  – greedoid
                  Jan 4 at 21:06










                • Chm.. can you explain this step? $ A^T = -2A rightarrow A =4A $
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:13












                • Just plug second line in first
                  – greedoid
                  Jan 4 at 21:14










                • Ahh, that's great, but unfortunately I can't use that because I haven't got this theorem on my lecture... But it is really smart
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:15




















                • By trivial you mean $ vec{0} $?
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:06










                • Yes, that is correct.
                  – greedoid
                  Jan 4 at 21:06










                • Chm.. can you explain this step? $ A^T = -2A rightarrow A =4A $
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:13












                • Just plug second line in first
                  – greedoid
                  Jan 4 at 21:14










                • Ahh, that's great, but unfortunately I can't use that because I haven't got this theorem on my lecture... But it is really smart
                  – VirtualUser
                  Jan 4 at 21:15


















                By trivial you mean $ vec{0} $?
                – VirtualUser
                Jan 4 at 21:06




                By trivial you mean $ vec{0} $?
                – VirtualUser
                Jan 4 at 21:06












                Yes, that is correct.
                – greedoid
                Jan 4 at 21:06




                Yes, that is correct.
                – greedoid
                Jan 4 at 21:06












                Chm.. can you explain this step? $ A^T = -2A rightarrow A =4A $
                – VirtualUser
                Jan 4 at 21:13






                Chm.. can you explain this step? $ A^T = -2A rightarrow A =4A $
                – VirtualUser
                Jan 4 at 21:13














                Just plug second line in first
                – greedoid
                Jan 4 at 21:14




                Just plug second line in first
                – greedoid
                Jan 4 at 21:14












                Ahh, that's great, but unfortunately I can't use that because I haven't got this theorem on my lecture... But it is really smart
                – VirtualUser
                Jan 4 at 21:15






                Ahh, that's great, but unfortunately I can't use that because I haven't got this theorem on my lecture... But it is really smart
                – VirtualUser
                Jan 4 at 21:15













                2














                You have $A-B = 2(A-B)^top$.
                This implies $a_{ij} - b_{ij} = 2 (a_{ji} - b_{ji}) = 4(a_{ij} - b_{ij})$, so...






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  2














                  You have $A-B = 2(A-B)^top$.
                  This implies $a_{ij} - b_{ij} = 2 (a_{ji} - b_{ji}) = 4(a_{ij} - b_{ij})$, so...






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    2












                    2








                    2






                    You have $A-B = 2(A-B)^top$.
                    This implies $a_{ij} - b_{ij} = 2 (a_{ji} - b_{ji}) = 4(a_{ij} - b_{ij})$, so...






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    You have $A-B = 2(A-B)^top$.
                    This implies $a_{ij} - b_{ij} = 2 (a_{ji} - b_{ji}) = 4(a_{ij} - b_{ij})$, so...







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jan 4 at 21:05









                    angryavianangryavian

                    39.4k23280




                    39.4k23280























                        1














                        You're already done. Since the map is from $mathbb R^{5times 5}$ to $mathbb R^{5times 5}$, checking that it's surjective (that it has full rank) also tells you that it's injective (that it has nullity $0$) by the rank-nullity theorem.






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          1














                          You're already done. Since the map is from $mathbb R^{5times 5}$ to $mathbb R^{5times 5}$, checking that it's surjective (that it has full rank) also tells you that it's injective (that it has nullity $0$) by the rank-nullity theorem.






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            1












                            1








                            1






                            You're already done. Since the map is from $mathbb R^{5times 5}$ to $mathbb R^{5times 5}$, checking that it's surjective (that it has full rank) also tells you that it's injective (that it has nullity $0$) by the rank-nullity theorem.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            You're already done. Since the map is from $mathbb R^{5times 5}$ to $mathbb R^{5times 5}$, checking that it's surjective (that it has full rank) also tells you that it's injective (that it has nullity $0$) by the rank-nullity theorem.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Jan 4 at 21:28









                            Misha LavrovMisha Lavrov

                            44.3k555106




                            44.3k555106























                                0














                                Hint:



                                It suffices to check that $f$ is surjective. For any matrix $B$ we have
                                $$fleft(-frac13B + frac23B^Tright) = B$$





                                It you are wondering how we got this, assume $A+2A^T = B$. Then $A^T + 2A = B^T$ so $$B + B^T = 3(A+A^T)$$
                                Now it follows $$A = B^T - (A+A^T) = B^T - frac13(B + B^T) = -frac13B + frac23B^T$$






                                share|cite|improve this answer





















                                • This seems to already be contained in the question post.
                                  – Misha Lavrov
                                  Jan 4 at 21:30










                                • @MishaLavrov Oops, I missed it. Still, here it is done slightly cleaner, without coordinates.
                                  – mechanodroid
                                  Jan 4 at 21:31
















                                0














                                Hint:



                                It suffices to check that $f$ is surjective. For any matrix $B$ we have
                                $$fleft(-frac13B + frac23B^Tright) = B$$





                                It you are wondering how we got this, assume $A+2A^T = B$. Then $A^T + 2A = B^T$ so $$B + B^T = 3(A+A^T)$$
                                Now it follows $$A = B^T - (A+A^T) = B^T - frac13(B + B^T) = -frac13B + frac23B^T$$






                                share|cite|improve this answer





















                                • This seems to already be contained in the question post.
                                  – Misha Lavrov
                                  Jan 4 at 21:30










                                • @MishaLavrov Oops, I missed it. Still, here it is done slightly cleaner, without coordinates.
                                  – mechanodroid
                                  Jan 4 at 21:31














                                0












                                0








                                0






                                Hint:



                                It suffices to check that $f$ is surjective. For any matrix $B$ we have
                                $$fleft(-frac13B + frac23B^Tright) = B$$





                                It you are wondering how we got this, assume $A+2A^T = B$. Then $A^T + 2A = B^T$ so $$B + B^T = 3(A+A^T)$$
                                Now it follows $$A = B^T - (A+A^T) = B^T - frac13(B + B^T) = -frac13B + frac23B^T$$






                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                Hint:



                                It suffices to check that $f$ is surjective. For any matrix $B$ we have
                                $$fleft(-frac13B + frac23B^Tright) = B$$





                                It you are wondering how we got this, assume $A+2A^T = B$. Then $A^T + 2A = B^T$ so $$B + B^T = 3(A+A^T)$$
                                Now it follows $$A = B^T - (A+A^T) = B^T - frac13(B + B^T) = -frac13B + frac23B^T$$







                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                answered Jan 4 at 21:28









                                mechanodroidmechanodroid

                                27k62446




                                27k62446












                                • This seems to already be contained in the question post.
                                  – Misha Lavrov
                                  Jan 4 at 21:30










                                • @MishaLavrov Oops, I missed it. Still, here it is done slightly cleaner, without coordinates.
                                  – mechanodroid
                                  Jan 4 at 21:31


















                                • This seems to already be contained in the question post.
                                  – Misha Lavrov
                                  Jan 4 at 21:30










                                • @MishaLavrov Oops, I missed it. Still, here it is done slightly cleaner, without coordinates.
                                  – mechanodroid
                                  Jan 4 at 21:31
















                                This seems to already be contained in the question post.
                                – Misha Lavrov
                                Jan 4 at 21:30




                                This seems to already be contained in the question post.
                                – Misha Lavrov
                                Jan 4 at 21:30












                                @MishaLavrov Oops, I missed it. Still, here it is done slightly cleaner, without coordinates.
                                – mechanodroid
                                Jan 4 at 21:31




                                @MishaLavrov Oops, I missed it. Still, here it is done slightly cleaner, without coordinates.
                                – mechanodroid
                                Jan 4 at 21:31











                                0














                                When you say
                                $$
                                a_{ij}=frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3}
                                $$

                                (I fixed the indices) is “determined unambiguously”, you have proved both surjectivity and injectivity. There is at most one matrix $mathbf{A}$ such that $f(mathbf{A})=mathbf{Q}$. And there is one, determined in the way you did (after fixing the small mistake).





                                On the other hand, a linear map $Lcolon Vto V$, where $V$ is a finite dimensional vector space, is injective if and only if it is surjective, because of the rank-nullity theorem. Therefore just one of the properties needs to be checked for.



                                You don't need to go to the level of matrix entries in order to prove surjectivity. Given $Q$ you want to find $A$ such that $f(A)=Q$, that is, $A+2A^T=Q$. If such matrix exists, then also
                                $$
                                A^T+2A=Q^T
                                $$

                                and so $2A^T+4A=2Q^T$; thus
                                $$
                                Q-2Q^T=A+2A^T-2A^T-4A=-3A
                                $$

                                so
                                $$
                                A=frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)
                                $$

                                is the only possible one. Since
                                $$
                                fleft(frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)right)=Q
                                $$

                                as it can be readily checked, you have surjectivity and injectivity.



                                Checking directly for injectivity is easier, though.






                                share|cite|improve this answer


























                                  0














                                  When you say
                                  $$
                                  a_{ij}=frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3}
                                  $$

                                  (I fixed the indices) is “determined unambiguously”, you have proved both surjectivity and injectivity. There is at most one matrix $mathbf{A}$ such that $f(mathbf{A})=mathbf{Q}$. And there is one, determined in the way you did (after fixing the small mistake).





                                  On the other hand, a linear map $Lcolon Vto V$, where $V$ is a finite dimensional vector space, is injective if and only if it is surjective, because of the rank-nullity theorem. Therefore just one of the properties needs to be checked for.



                                  You don't need to go to the level of matrix entries in order to prove surjectivity. Given $Q$ you want to find $A$ such that $f(A)=Q$, that is, $A+2A^T=Q$. If such matrix exists, then also
                                  $$
                                  A^T+2A=Q^T
                                  $$

                                  and so $2A^T+4A=2Q^T$; thus
                                  $$
                                  Q-2Q^T=A+2A^T-2A^T-4A=-3A
                                  $$

                                  so
                                  $$
                                  A=frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)
                                  $$

                                  is the only possible one. Since
                                  $$
                                  fleft(frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)right)=Q
                                  $$

                                  as it can be readily checked, you have surjectivity and injectivity.



                                  Checking directly for injectivity is easier, though.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                                    0












                                    0








                                    0






                                    When you say
                                    $$
                                    a_{ij}=frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3}
                                    $$

                                    (I fixed the indices) is “determined unambiguously”, you have proved both surjectivity and injectivity. There is at most one matrix $mathbf{A}$ such that $f(mathbf{A})=mathbf{Q}$. And there is one, determined in the way you did (after fixing the small mistake).





                                    On the other hand, a linear map $Lcolon Vto V$, where $V$ is a finite dimensional vector space, is injective if and only if it is surjective, because of the rank-nullity theorem. Therefore just one of the properties needs to be checked for.



                                    You don't need to go to the level of matrix entries in order to prove surjectivity. Given $Q$ you want to find $A$ such that $f(A)=Q$, that is, $A+2A^T=Q$. If such matrix exists, then also
                                    $$
                                    A^T+2A=Q^T
                                    $$

                                    and so $2A^T+4A=2Q^T$; thus
                                    $$
                                    Q-2Q^T=A+2A^T-2A^T-4A=-3A
                                    $$

                                    so
                                    $$
                                    A=frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)
                                    $$

                                    is the only possible one. Since
                                    $$
                                    fleft(frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)right)=Q
                                    $$

                                    as it can be readily checked, you have surjectivity and injectivity.



                                    Checking directly for injectivity is easier, though.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    When you say
                                    $$
                                    a_{ij}=frac{2q_{ji}-q_{ij}}{3}
                                    $$

                                    (I fixed the indices) is “determined unambiguously”, you have proved both surjectivity and injectivity. There is at most one matrix $mathbf{A}$ such that $f(mathbf{A})=mathbf{Q}$. And there is one, determined in the way you did (after fixing the small mistake).





                                    On the other hand, a linear map $Lcolon Vto V$, where $V$ is a finite dimensional vector space, is injective if and only if it is surjective, because of the rank-nullity theorem. Therefore just one of the properties needs to be checked for.



                                    You don't need to go to the level of matrix entries in order to prove surjectivity. Given $Q$ you want to find $A$ such that $f(A)=Q$, that is, $A+2A^T=Q$. If such matrix exists, then also
                                    $$
                                    A^T+2A=Q^T
                                    $$

                                    and so $2A^T+4A=2Q^T$; thus
                                    $$
                                    Q-2Q^T=A+2A^T-2A^T-4A=-3A
                                    $$

                                    so
                                    $$
                                    A=frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)
                                    $$

                                    is the only possible one. Since
                                    $$
                                    fleft(frac{1}{3}(2Q^{T}-Q)right)=Q
                                    $$

                                    as it can be readily checked, you have surjectivity and injectivity.



                                    Checking directly for injectivity is easier, though.







                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer










                                    answered Jan 4 at 21:31









                                    egregegreg

                                    179k1485202




                                    179k1485202






























                                        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.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062109%2fis-fa-a-2at-an-isomorphism-of-mathbb-r5-5-onto-itself%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

                                        1300-talet

                                        1300-talet

                                        Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8