5

In Linear Algebra Done Right by Axler, there are two sentences he uses to describe the uniqueness of Linear Maps (3.5) which I cannot reconcile. Namely, whether the uniqueness of Linear Maps is determined by the choice of 1) basis or 2) subspace. These two seem like very different statements to me given there can be a many-to-one relationship between basis and subspace. In otherwords, saying a Linear Map is "unique on a subspace" seems like a stronger statement than saying it is "unique on a basis".

This first sentence he writes before proving the theorem (3.5):

The uniqueness part of the next result means that a linear map is completely determined by its values on a basis.

This second sentence he writes at the end after proving the uniqueness of a linear map:

Thus $T$ is uniquely determined on $span(v_1, \dots, v_n)$ by the equation above. Because $v_1, \dots, v_n$ is a basis of $V$, this implies that $T$ is uniquely determined on $V$.

My question is, if $T$ is uniquely determined on $V$, doesn't that imply that the choice of basis for $V$ doesn't matter (since each basis of $V$ spans $V$)? But if so, a key part of the theorem requires explicitly choosing $T$ such that $T(v_j)=w_j$, meaning if we choose a different basis $a_1, \dots, a_n$ of $V$ and then select $T$ such that $T(a_j)=w_j$, we would get a different $T$.

I've found these questions here and here that are tangentially related but don't address my question specifically. On the other hand the questions here and here get a little closer, but the answer in the first suggests that the choice of basis is arbitrary where as the answer in the second suggests the basis must be the same.

For more information, I've included the complete statement of the theorem plus the last paragraph of the proof.

Theorem 3.5 Linear maps and basis of domain

Suppose $v_1, \dots, v_n$ is a basis of $V$ and $w_1, \dots, w_n \in W$. Then there exists a unique linear map $T: V \to W$ such that $Tv_j=w_j$ for each $j = 1, \dots, n$.

Last paragraph of proof:

To prove uniqueness, now suppose that $T \in \mathcal{L}(V,W)$; and that $Tv_j=w_j$ for each $j = 1, \dots ,n$. Let $c_1, \dots, c_n \in F$. The homogeneity of $T$ implies that $T(c_jv_j) = c_jw_j$ for each $j=1, \dots, n$. The additivity of $T$ now implies that $T(c_1v_1 + \cdots + c_nv_n) = c_1w_1 + \cdots + c_nw_n$. Thus $T$ is uniquely determined on $span(v_1, \dots, v_n)$ by the equation above. Because $v_1, \dots, v_n$ is a basis of $V$, this implies that $T$ is uniquely determined on $V$.

  • I am not sure I understand your question, but if $T$ is uniquely defined on $V$ then the basis is irrelevant. But in the above, the fact that $ \operatorname{sp}{v_1,...,v_n} = V$ is all that is relevant. – copper.hat Apr 23 '21 at 20:45
  • Hey I think my confusion is that it seems to me (which could be wrong) that choosing a different basis of $V$ would result in a different $T$ based on the statement of the theorem, namely that there exists a unique linear map $T : V \to W$ such that $Tv_j=w_j$. – NNNComplex Apr 23 '21 at 20:47
  • If that was the case then $T$ is certainly not uniquely defined on $V$. Something would be wrong then. – copper.hat Apr 23 '21 at 20:48
  • A linear function is completely specified by its action on a basis. If you choose a different basis it will still by completely specified by its action on that different basis. – copper.hat Apr 23 '21 at 20:50
  • I suspect I am missing the point of your question. – copper.hat Apr 23 '21 at 20:51
  • I wrote an example of how I'm confused as a comment to @RobertTheTutor's answer. Perhaps that can help pinpoint where my thinking is wrong. If it's useful I can include it as part of the question. – NNNComplex Apr 23 '21 at 21:07
  • I added a non answer which I think/hope addresses your concern. – copper.hat Apr 23 '21 at 21:20

3 Answers3

3

Not an answer, just too long for a comment.

Suppose I have a transformation $T: \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}$.

Pick a basis $B=\{ e_1=(1,0), e_2=(0,1) \}$.

Then $T$ is completely specified by the values $w_1=T(e_1),w_2=T(e_2)$.

Now suppose I pick another basis $C=\{ c_1=(1,1), c_2=(1,-1) \}$.

If I pick values $v_1,v_2$ corresponding to the points $c_1,c_2$ then in order that they match $T$, we must have $v_1 = T(e_1)+T(e_2)$ and $v_2=T(e_1)-T(e_2)$ otherwise we will be specifying a different transformation.

In general you can't just change the basis and keep the same 'w's.

copper.hat
  • 178,207
  • 1
    I know this wasn't meant to be an answer but I selected it because it was best at identifying my misunderstanding. The main clarification for me is that $T$ is specified by both the values $w_j$ and $v_j$, so selecting a different $v_j$ while keeping the same $w_j$ is a different transformation. In my initial question, I misunderstood "$T$ is uniquely determined on $V$" to mean "$T$ is uniquely determined by $V$" (the latter of which is clearly incorrect). In other words, once $T$ is determined by $w_j$ on $v_j$, it is unique on $V$. Let me know if that's right. – NNNComplex Apr 24 '21 at 17:35
  • 1
    @NNNComplex Your understanding is correct. – copper.hat Apr 24 '21 at 17:43
2

Your comment is correct. the $T$ in question here was defined in terms of the basis given. So each basis would indeed have a different $T$

Alan
  • 16,895
  • In that case, what does it mean for $T$ to be uniquely determined on $V$? – NNNComplex Apr 23 '21 at 21:02
  • 1
    @NNNComplex It means that if $T$ is a linear map and you know how it maps the elements of a basis of $V$, then you know how it maps all elements of $V$, thus you have completely determined $T$. –  Apr 23 '21 at 21:19
2

If $Tv=w$, that will be true in any basis. Given a basis, you can write out $T$, $v$, and $w$ in that basis, and $Tv=w$ will be true. Conversely, if $Tv=w$ is true in one basis, it will be true in all choices of basis.

A subspace can be defined as a span of a set of vectors. A basis for a subspace is a minimal spanning set. You need a basis to write explicit components for matrices and vectors.

You can define $T$ using components in a particular basis. The action of $T$ is coordinate independent; only the descriptions change, as you change basis.

You can nail down which transformation you are talking about, specify $T$ uniquely, by giving its matrix in some basis along with the choice of basis. If you give a random grid of numbers, there is no way to know what transformation that represents without assuming a basis, such as the standard basis.

  • Say we want to find a transformation $T: \mathbb{R^2} \to y=x$. We chose as basis $v_1 = [1,0]$ and $v_2 = [0,1]$. Let's say we now pick some point $w_1 = [1,1]$ and $w_2 = [1,1]$ to satisfy the criteria $T : V \to W$ such that $Tv_j=w_j$. Now if we change the basis but keep $w$ the same, doesn't $T$ change? – NNNComplex Apr 23 '21 at 21:05
  • 1
    @NNNComplex Of course it changes, because you are defining a different transformation. If you change the basis, you would need to change the values $w$ to reflect their relationship to the values obtained in the previous basis. – copper.hat Apr 23 '21 at 21:10
  • 1
    When you change the basis, every vector and every matrix needs to get rewritten. You can't just change some of them. – RobertTheTutor Apr 23 '21 at 22:31