Intuitive explanation of the rank-nullity theorem Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Proof of rank nullity theoremDoes the rank-nullity theorem hold for infinite dimensional $V$?rank-nullity theorem clarificationRank-nullity theorem for free $mathbb Z$-modulesProving that $mathrmrank(T) = mathrmrank(L_A)$ and $mathrmnullity(T) = mathrmnullity(L_A)$, where $A=[T]_beta^gamma$.Find the rank and nullity of the following matrixQuestion on proof for why $operatornamerank(T) = operatornamerank(LA)$Question about rank-nullity theoremRank nullity theorem -bijectionsome confusion in Rank nullity theorem.

Why we try to capture variability?

How to pronounce 伝統色

Electrolysis of water: Which equations to use? (IB Chem)

Lagrange four-squares theorem --- deterministic complexity

Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?

Project Euler #1 in C++

Amount of permutations on an NxNxN Rubik's Cube

In musical terms, what properties are varied by the human voice to produce different words / syllables?

Does the Mueller report show a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump Campaign?

How can I prevent/balance waiting and turtling as a response to cooldown mechanics

What does Turing mean by this statement?

Sliceness of knots

preposition before coffee

Can a Beast Master ranger change beast companions?

The Nth Gryphon Number

What does this say in Elvish?

Is multiple magic items in one inherently imbalanced?

Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?

An adverb for when you're not exaggerating

Strange behavior of Object.defineProperty() in JavaScript

Antipodal Land Area Calculation

How does Belgium enforce obligatory attendance in elections?

How would a mousetrap for use in space work?

What is the meaning of 'breadth' in breadth first search?



Intuitive explanation of the rank-nullity theorem



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Proof of rank nullity theoremDoes the rank-nullity theorem hold for infinite dimensional $V$?rank-nullity theorem clarificationRank-nullity theorem for free $mathbb Z$-modulesProving that $mathrmrank(T) = mathrmrank(L_A)$ and $mathrmnullity(T) = mathrmnullity(L_A)$, where $A=[T]_beta^gamma$.Find the rank and nullity of the following matrixQuestion on proof for why $operatornamerank(T) = operatornamerank(LA)$Question about rank-nullity theoremRank nullity theorem -bijectionsome confusion in Rank nullity theorem.










5












$begingroup$


I understand that if you have a linear transformation from $U$ to $V$ with, say, $operatornamedim U = 3$, $operatornamerank T = 2$, then the set of points that map onto the $0$ vector will lie along a straight line, and therefore $operatornamenullityT = 1$.



Can anyone offer an intuitive explanation of why this is always true?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fix a basis $(b_1,...,b_k,...,b_n)$ of $V$ such that $(b_1,...,b_k)$ is a basis of $ker(f)$. Then the remaining basis vectors $b_k+1,...,b_n$ have linearly independent images $f(b_k+1),...,f(b_n)$. Since the other basis vectors get mapped to $0$, these alone must span $mathrmim(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrmrank(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
    $endgroup$
    – Thorgott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This is similar to the proof that was given in my linear algebra module, I think I'm looking for a more geometric explanation
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very loosely, I think of the rank-nullity theorem as saying: What you end up with is what you start with minus what you lose. "What you end up with" being the rank, "what you start with" being the dimension of the domain space, and "what you lose" being the nullity.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Schepler
    3 hours ago















5












$begingroup$


I understand that if you have a linear transformation from $U$ to $V$ with, say, $operatornamedim U = 3$, $operatornamerank T = 2$, then the set of points that map onto the $0$ vector will lie along a straight line, and therefore $operatornamenullityT = 1$.



Can anyone offer an intuitive explanation of why this is always true?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fix a basis $(b_1,...,b_k,...,b_n)$ of $V$ such that $(b_1,...,b_k)$ is a basis of $ker(f)$. Then the remaining basis vectors $b_k+1,...,b_n$ have linearly independent images $f(b_k+1),...,f(b_n)$. Since the other basis vectors get mapped to $0$, these alone must span $mathrmim(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrmrank(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
    $endgroup$
    – Thorgott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This is similar to the proof that was given in my linear algebra module, I think I'm looking for a more geometric explanation
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very loosely, I think of the rank-nullity theorem as saying: What you end up with is what you start with minus what you lose. "What you end up with" being the rank, "what you start with" being the dimension of the domain space, and "what you lose" being the nullity.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Schepler
    3 hours ago













5












5








5


1



$begingroup$


I understand that if you have a linear transformation from $U$ to $V$ with, say, $operatornamedim U = 3$, $operatornamerank T = 2$, then the set of points that map onto the $0$ vector will lie along a straight line, and therefore $operatornamenullityT = 1$.



Can anyone offer an intuitive explanation of why this is always true?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I understand that if you have a linear transformation from $U$ to $V$ with, say, $operatornamedim U = 3$, $operatornamerank T = 2$, then the set of points that map onto the $0$ vector will lie along a straight line, and therefore $operatornamenullityT = 1$.



Can anyone offer an intuitive explanation of why this is always true?







linear-algebra matrix-rank






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









Alex Ortiz

11.6k21442




11.6k21442










asked 4 hours ago









JosephJoseph

475




475







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fix a basis $(b_1,...,b_k,...,b_n)$ of $V$ such that $(b_1,...,b_k)$ is a basis of $ker(f)$. Then the remaining basis vectors $b_k+1,...,b_n$ have linearly independent images $f(b_k+1),...,f(b_n)$. Since the other basis vectors get mapped to $0$, these alone must span $mathrmim(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrmrank(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
    $endgroup$
    – Thorgott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This is similar to the proof that was given in my linear algebra module, I think I'm looking for a more geometric explanation
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very loosely, I think of the rank-nullity theorem as saying: What you end up with is what you start with minus what you lose. "What you end up with" being the rank, "what you start with" being the dimension of the domain space, and "what you lose" being the nullity.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Schepler
    3 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fix a basis $(b_1,...,b_k,...,b_n)$ of $V$ such that $(b_1,...,b_k)$ is a basis of $ker(f)$. Then the remaining basis vectors $b_k+1,...,b_n$ have linearly independent images $f(b_k+1),...,f(b_n)$. Since the other basis vectors get mapped to $0$, these alone must span $mathrmim(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrmrank(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
    $endgroup$
    – Thorgott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This is similar to the proof that was given in my linear algebra module, I think I'm looking for a more geometric explanation
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very loosely, I think of the rank-nullity theorem as saying: What you end up with is what you start with minus what you lose. "What you end up with" being the rank, "what you start with" being the dimension of the domain space, and "what you lose" being the nullity.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Schepler
    3 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Fix a basis $(b_1,...,b_k,...,b_n)$ of $V$ such that $(b_1,...,b_k)$ is a basis of $ker(f)$. Then the remaining basis vectors $b_k+1,...,b_n$ have linearly independent images $f(b_k+1),...,f(b_n)$. Since the other basis vectors get mapped to $0$, these alone must span $mathrmim(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrmrank(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
$endgroup$
– Thorgott
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Fix a basis $(b_1,...,b_k,...,b_n)$ of $V$ such that $(b_1,...,b_k)$ is a basis of $ker(f)$. Then the remaining basis vectors $b_k+1,...,b_n$ have linearly independent images $f(b_k+1),...,f(b_n)$. Since the other basis vectors get mapped to $0$, these alone must span $mathrmim(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrmrank(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
$endgroup$
– Thorgott
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
This is similar to the proof that was given in my linear algebra module, I think I'm looking for a more geometric explanation
$endgroup$
– Joseph
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
This is similar to the proof that was given in my linear algebra module, I think I'm looking for a more geometric explanation
$endgroup$
– Joseph
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
Very loosely, I think of the rank-nullity theorem as saying: What you end up with is what you start with minus what you lose. "What you end up with" being the rank, "what you start with" being the dimension of the domain space, and "what you lose" being the nullity.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Schepler
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Very loosely, I think of the rank-nullity theorem as saying: What you end up with is what you start with minus what you lose. "What you end up with" being the rank, "what you start with" being the dimension of the domain space, and "what you lose" being the nullity.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Schepler
3 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

I like this question. Let me take a shot at it. I think it's best to think of the rank as the dimension of the range (or image).



Consider first a nonsingular transformation $T$ on an $n-$dimensional vector space. We know that the rank is $n$ and the nullity $0$, so the theorem holds in this case. $T$ maps a basis to a basis. Suppose we modify $T$ by mapping the first vector in the basis to $0$. Call the new transformation $T_1$. Clearly, the nullity of $T$ is $1$. What is the rank? In the image of $T$ one of the basis vectors collapses to $0$ when we go to the image of $T_1,$ so the image of $T_1$ has dimension $n-1$ and the theorem hold in this case.



Now continue the process. If $T_2$ is the same as $T_1$ except that the second basis vector is mapped to $0$, then the nullity will be $2$, and the image will be of dimension $n-2$, because again, one dimension collapses.



Of course, we can continue until we arrive at $T_n=0$ and the theorem always holds.



I hope this makes intuitive sense to you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    2












    $begingroup$

    I like saulspatz' answer because it is very hands-on. I would like to offer another perspective, one based on the fact that linear transformations are characterized by their ranks, up to choice of bases in domain and codomain. The key is in this proposition:



    Proposition. Suppose $Tcolon Vto W$ is a linear transformation with $dim V = n$ and $dim W = m$ and $operatornamerank T = r leqslant m$. Then there are bases $v_1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_m$ for $W$ such that the matrix for $T$ with respect to these bases is
    $$
    mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & 0_rtimes n-r \ 0_m-rtimes r & 0_m-rtimes n-rendpmatrix,
    $$

    where $I_rtimes r$ is the $rtimes r$ identity matrix, and the various $0_asttimesast$ are the zero matrices of the corresponding dimensions. As a quick corollary of the proposition, we can read off of the matrix for $T$ in these bases that
    beginalign*
    operatornamerankT &stackreltextdef= dim operatornameimageT = r, \
    operatornamenullityT &stackreltextdef= dim ker T = n-r,
    endalign*

    and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
    $$
    dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatornamerankT + operatornamenullityT.
    $$

    For a quick proof of the proposition, keeping things as "coarse" as possible for intuition's sake, because the rank of $T$ is $r$, take vectors $v_1,dots,v_r$ in $V$ such that $w_1 = T(v_1),dots,w_r = T(v_r)$ span the image of $T$. Extend $v_1,dots,v_r$ to a basis $v_1,dots,v_r,v_r+1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_r$ to a basis $w_1,dots,w_r,w_r+1,dots,w_m$ for $W$. With respect to these bases, we quickly determine
    $$
    mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & ast \ 0_m-rtimes r & astendpmatrix.
    $$

    Because the rank of $T$ is $r$, and the first $r$ columns of the matrix for $T$ are linearly independent, we determine that (possibly after some row and column operations) the two $ast$'s in the above matrix for $T$ have to be the zero matrices of appropriate dimensions, hence the proposition.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer








      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%2f3193933%2fintuitive-explanation-of-the-rank-nullity-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4












      $begingroup$

      I like this question. Let me take a shot at it. I think it's best to think of the rank as the dimension of the range (or image).



      Consider first a nonsingular transformation $T$ on an $n-$dimensional vector space. We know that the rank is $n$ and the nullity $0$, so the theorem holds in this case. $T$ maps a basis to a basis. Suppose we modify $T$ by mapping the first vector in the basis to $0$. Call the new transformation $T_1$. Clearly, the nullity of $T$ is $1$. What is the rank? In the image of $T$ one of the basis vectors collapses to $0$ when we go to the image of $T_1,$ so the image of $T_1$ has dimension $n-1$ and the theorem hold in this case.



      Now continue the process. If $T_2$ is the same as $T_1$ except that the second basis vector is mapped to $0$, then the nullity will be $2$, and the image will be of dimension $n-2$, because again, one dimension collapses.



      Of course, we can continue until we arrive at $T_n=0$ and the theorem always holds.



      I hope this makes intuitive sense to you.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        4












        $begingroup$

        I like this question. Let me take a shot at it. I think it's best to think of the rank as the dimension of the range (or image).



        Consider first a nonsingular transformation $T$ on an $n-$dimensional vector space. We know that the rank is $n$ and the nullity $0$, so the theorem holds in this case. $T$ maps a basis to a basis. Suppose we modify $T$ by mapping the first vector in the basis to $0$. Call the new transformation $T_1$. Clearly, the nullity of $T$ is $1$. What is the rank? In the image of $T$ one of the basis vectors collapses to $0$ when we go to the image of $T_1,$ so the image of $T_1$ has dimension $n-1$ and the theorem hold in this case.



        Now continue the process. If $T_2$ is the same as $T_1$ except that the second basis vector is mapped to $0$, then the nullity will be $2$, and the image will be of dimension $n-2$, because again, one dimension collapses.



        Of course, we can continue until we arrive at $T_n=0$ and the theorem always holds.



        I hope this makes intuitive sense to you.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          I like this question. Let me take a shot at it. I think it's best to think of the rank as the dimension of the range (or image).



          Consider first a nonsingular transformation $T$ on an $n-$dimensional vector space. We know that the rank is $n$ and the nullity $0$, so the theorem holds in this case. $T$ maps a basis to a basis. Suppose we modify $T$ by mapping the first vector in the basis to $0$. Call the new transformation $T_1$. Clearly, the nullity of $T$ is $1$. What is the rank? In the image of $T$ one of the basis vectors collapses to $0$ when we go to the image of $T_1,$ so the image of $T_1$ has dimension $n-1$ and the theorem hold in this case.



          Now continue the process. If $T_2$ is the same as $T_1$ except that the second basis vector is mapped to $0$, then the nullity will be $2$, and the image will be of dimension $n-2$, because again, one dimension collapses.



          Of course, we can continue until we arrive at $T_n=0$ and the theorem always holds.



          I hope this makes intuitive sense to you.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I like this question. Let me take a shot at it. I think it's best to think of the rank as the dimension of the range (or image).



          Consider first a nonsingular transformation $T$ on an $n-$dimensional vector space. We know that the rank is $n$ and the nullity $0$, so the theorem holds in this case. $T$ maps a basis to a basis. Suppose we modify $T$ by mapping the first vector in the basis to $0$. Call the new transformation $T_1$. Clearly, the nullity of $T$ is $1$. What is the rank? In the image of $T$ one of the basis vectors collapses to $0$ when we go to the image of $T_1,$ so the image of $T_1$ has dimension $n-1$ and the theorem hold in this case.



          Now continue the process. If $T_2$ is the same as $T_1$ except that the second basis vector is mapped to $0$, then the nullity will be $2$, and the image will be of dimension $n-2$, because again, one dimension collapses.



          Of course, we can continue until we arrive at $T_n=0$ and the theorem always holds.



          I hope this makes intuitive sense to you.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 3 hours ago









          saulspatzsaulspatz

          17.6k31536




          17.6k31536





















              2












              $begingroup$

              I like saulspatz' answer because it is very hands-on. I would like to offer another perspective, one based on the fact that linear transformations are characterized by their ranks, up to choice of bases in domain and codomain. The key is in this proposition:



              Proposition. Suppose $Tcolon Vto W$ is a linear transformation with $dim V = n$ and $dim W = m$ and $operatornamerank T = r leqslant m$. Then there are bases $v_1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_m$ for $W$ such that the matrix for $T$ with respect to these bases is
              $$
              mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & 0_rtimes n-r \ 0_m-rtimes r & 0_m-rtimes n-rendpmatrix,
              $$

              where $I_rtimes r$ is the $rtimes r$ identity matrix, and the various $0_asttimesast$ are the zero matrices of the corresponding dimensions. As a quick corollary of the proposition, we can read off of the matrix for $T$ in these bases that
              beginalign*
              operatornamerankT &stackreltextdef= dim operatornameimageT = r, \
              operatornamenullityT &stackreltextdef= dim ker T = n-r,
              endalign*

              and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
              $$
              dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatornamerankT + operatornamenullityT.
              $$

              For a quick proof of the proposition, keeping things as "coarse" as possible for intuition's sake, because the rank of $T$ is $r$, take vectors $v_1,dots,v_r$ in $V$ such that $w_1 = T(v_1),dots,w_r = T(v_r)$ span the image of $T$. Extend $v_1,dots,v_r$ to a basis $v_1,dots,v_r,v_r+1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_r$ to a basis $w_1,dots,w_r,w_r+1,dots,w_m$ for $W$. With respect to these bases, we quickly determine
              $$
              mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & ast \ 0_m-rtimes r & astendpmatrix.
              $$

              Because the rank of $T$ is $r$, and the first $r$ columns of the matrix for $T$ are linearly independent, we determine that (possibly after some row and column operations) the two $ast$'s in the above matrix for $T$ have to be the zero matrices of appropriate dimensions, hence the proposition.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                2












                $begingroup$

                I like saulspatz' answer because it is very hands-on. I would like to offer another perspective, one based on the fact that linear transformations are characterized by their ranks, up to choice of bases in domain and codomain. The key is in this proposition:



                Proposition. Suppose $Tcolon Vto W$ is a linear transformation with $dim V = n$ and $dim W = m$ and $operatornamerank T = r leqslant m$. Then there are bases $v_1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_m$ for $W$ such that the matrix for $T$ with respect to these bases is
                $$
                mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & 0_rtimes n-r \ 0_m-rtimes r & 0_m-rtimes n-rendpmatrix,
                $$

                where $I_rtimes r$ is the $rtimes r$ identity matrix, and the various $0_asttimesast$ are the zero matrices of the corresponding dimensions. As a quick corollary of the proposition, we can read off of the matrix for $T$ in these bases that
                beginalign*
                operatornamerankT &stackreltextdef= dim operatornameimageT = r, \
                operatornamenullityT &stackreltextdef= dim ker T = n-r,
                endalign*

                and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
                $$
                dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatornamerankT + operatornamenullityT.
                $$

                For a quick proof of the proposition, keeping things as "coarse" as possible for intuition's sake, because the rank of $T$ is $r$, take vectors $v_1,dots,v_r$ in $V$ such that $w_1 = T(v_1),dots,w_r = T(v_r)$ span the image of $T$. Extend $v_1,dots,v_r$ to a basis $v_1,dots,v_r,v_r+1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_r$ to a basis $w_1,dots,w_r,w_r+1,dots,w_m$ for $W$. With respect to these bases, we quickly determine
                $$
                mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & ast \ 0_m-rtimes r & astendpmatrix.
                $$

                Because the rank of $T$ is $r$, and the first $r$ columns of the matrix for $T$ are linearly independent, we determine that (possibly after some row and column operations) the two $ast$'s in the above matrix for $T$ have to be the zero matrices of appropriate dimensions, hence the proposition.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  I like saulspatz' answer because it is very hands-on. I would like to offer another perspective, one based on the fact that linear transformations are characterized by their ranks, up to choice of bases in domain and codomain. The key is in this proposition:



                  Proposition. Suppose $Tcolon Vto W$ is a linear transformation with $dim V = n$ and $dim W = m$ and $operatornamerank T = r leqslant m$. Then there are bases $v_1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_m$ for $W$ such that the matrix for $T$ with respect to these bases is
                  $$
                  mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & 0_rtimes n-r \ 0_m-rtimes r & 0_m-rtimes n-rendpmatrix,
                  $$

                  where $I_rtimes r$ is the $rtimes r$ identity matrix, and the various $0_asttimesast$ are the zero matrices of the corresponding dimensions. As a quick corollary of the proposition, we can read off of the matrix for $T$ in these bases that
                  beginalign*
                  operatornamerankT &stackreltextdef= dim operatornameimageT = r, \
                  operatornamenullityT &stackreltextdef= dim ker T = n-r,
                  endalign*

                  and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
                  $$
                  dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatornamerankT + operatornamenullityT.
                  $$

                  For a quick proof of the proposition, keeping things as "coarse" as possible for intuition's sake, because the rank of $T$ is $r$, take vectors $v_1,dots,v_r$ in $V$ such that $w_1 = T(v_1),dots,w_r = T(v_r)$ span the image of $T$. Extend $v_1,dots,v_r$ to a basis $v_1,dots,v_r,v_r+1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_r$ to a basis $w_1,dots,w_r,w_r+1,dots,w_m$ for $W$. With respect to these bases, we quickly determine
                  $$
                  mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & ast \ 0_m-rtimes r & astendpmatrix.
                  $$

                  Because the rank of $T$ is $r$, and the first $r$ columns of the matrix for $T$ are linearly independent, we determine that (possibly after some row and column operations) the two $ast$'s in the above matrix for $T$ have to be the zero matrices of appropriate dimensions, hence the proposition.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  I like saulspatz' answer because it is very hands-on. I would like to offer another perspective, one based on the fact that linear transformations are characterized by their ranks, up to choice of bases in domain and codomain. The key is in this proposition:



                  Proposition. Suppose $Tcolon Vto W$ is a linear transformation with $dim V = n$ and $dim W = m$ and $operatornamerank T = r leqslant m$. Then there are bases $v_1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_m$ for $W$ such that the matrix for $T$ with respect to these bases is
                  $$
                  mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & 0_rtimes n-r \ 0_m-rtimes r & 0_m-rtimes n-rendpmatrix,
                  $$

                  where $I_rtimes r$ is the $rtimes r$ identity matrix, and the various $0_asttimesast$ are the zero matrices of the corresponding dimensions. As a quick corollary of the proposition, we can read off of the matrix for $T$ in these bases that
                  beginalign*
                  operatornamerankT &stackreltextdef= dim operatornameimageT = r, \
                  operatornamenullityT &stackreltextdef= dim ker T = n-r,
                  endalign*

                  and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
                  $$
                  dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatornamerankT + operatornamenullityT.
                  $$

                  For a quick proof of the proposition, keeping things as "coarse" as possible for intuition's sake, because the rank of $T$ is $r$, take vectors $v_1,dots,v_r$ in $V$ such that $w_1 = T(v_1),dots,w_r = T(v_r)$ span the image of $T$. Extend $v_1,dots,v_r$ to a basis $v_1,dots,v_r,v_r+1,dots,v_n$ for $V$ and $w_1,dots,w_r$ to a basis $w_1,dots,w_r,w_r+1,dots,w_m$ for $W$. With respect to these bases, we quickly determine
                  $$
                  mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = beginpmatrix I_rtimes r & ast \ 0_m-rtimes r & astendpmatrix.
                  $$

                  Because the rank of $T$ is $r$, and the first $r$ columns of the matrix for $T$ are linearly independent, we determine that (possibly after some row and column operations) the two $ast$'s in the above matrix for $T$ have to be the zero matrices of appropriate dimensions, hence the proposition.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 2 hours ago

























                  answered 3 hours ago









                  Alex OrtizAlex Ortiz

                  11.6k21442




                  11.6k21442



























                      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%2f3193933%2fintuitive-explanation-of-the-rank-nullity-theorem%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

                      名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

                      Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

                      Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar