At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I think it is false but I need a counterexample to show me that. lol
So kerL=0 is the elements v in V such that L(v)=0
So we need to show that for some mapping L that L is not a bijection Remember a bijection has the following properties: A )x,y in V, L(x)=L(y) implies x=y (injective) B )if for every w in W there exists at least one v in V such that L(v)=w (surjective)
So we know that L is injective. So L fails the surjective part of the definition of bijective. Assume that ker(L) = 0. If L(v1) = L(v2), then linearity of L tells that L(v1 - v2) = 0. Then ker(L) = 0 implies v1-v2 = 0, which shows that v1=v2 as desired.
If the kernel is non-zero the the dimensionality of the image of V, L(V) is equal to V. This tells us intuitively that the map is 1:1. To formalize it, we need two things, as you observe a) surjectivity b) injectivity a) is trivial, and notice that L(V) need NOT equal W Now using your argument above, you've shown the L is injective, i.e., 1:1, because if L(v1) = L(v2), then v1 = v2. Hence indeed L is a bijection.
So that is why I couldn't think of a function that fails the surjective part becacuse the statement was true. lol
Wouldn't we need to know the dimensions of V and W in order to determine if it was indeed surjective?
I'm just saying it surjective onto its image and the sense of a function being a bijection being just one to one and onto. If the question is: is the map L a bijection *between V and W*, yes, then clearly we need that dim(V) = dim(W) in the finite case.