Intuitive explanation of the rank-nullity theorem Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate...

Lagrange four-squares theorem --- deterministic complexity

Should a wizard buy fine inks every time he want to copy spells into his spellbook?

Misunderstanding of Sylow theory

If Windows 7 doesn't support WSL, then what is "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications"?

AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network

The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?

Project Euler #1 in C++

What's the point of the test set?

Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?

How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?

Why do early math courses focus on the cross sections of a cone and not on other 3D objects?

preposition before coffee

What are the discoveries that have been possible with the rejection of positivism?

Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines

Google .dev domain strangely redirects to https

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

How can I set the aperture on my DSLR when it's attached to a telescope instead of a lens?

What's the difference between the capability remove_users and delete_users?

Has negative voting ever been officially implemented in elections, or seriously proposed, or even studied?

Is multiple magic items in one inherently imbalanced?

What do you call the main part of a joke?

Is there hard evidence that the grant peer review system performs significantly better than random?

Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?

Time evolution of a Gaussian wave packet, why convert to k-space?



Intuitive explanation of the rank-nullity theorem



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Intuitive explanation of why $dimoperatorname{Im} T + dimoperatorname{Ker} T = dim V$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 $mathrm{rank}(T) = mathrm{rank}(L_A)$ and $mathrm{nullity}(T) = mathrm{nullity}(L_A)$, where $A=[T]_beta^gamma$.Find the rank and nullity of the following matrixQuestion on proof for why $operatorname{rank}(T) = operatorname{rank}(LA)$Question about rank-nullity theoremRank nullity theorem -bijectionsome confusion in Rank nullity theorem.












7












$begingroup$


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



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










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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 $mathrm{im}(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrm{rank}(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
    $endgroup$
    – Thorgott
    11 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
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Intuitive explanation of why $dimoperatorname{Im} T + dimoperatorname{Ker} T = dim V$
    $endgroup$
    – YuiTo Cheng
    2 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$


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



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










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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 $mathrm{im}(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrm{rank}(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
    $endgroup$
    – Thorgott
    11 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
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Intuitive explanation of why $dimoperatorname{Im} T + dimoperatorname{Ker} T = dim V$
    $endgroup$
    – YuiTo Cheng
    2 hours ago














7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


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



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, $operatorname{dim} U = 3$, $operatorname{rank} T = 2$, then the set of points that map onto the $0$ vector will lie along a straight line, and therefore $operatorname{nullity}T = 1$.



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 9 hours ago









Alex Ortiz

11.6k21442




11.6k21442










asked 11 hours ago









JosephJoseph

575




575








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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 $mathrm{im}(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrm{rank}(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
    $endgroup$
    – Thorgott
    11 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
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Intuitive explanation of why $dimoperatorname{Im} T + dimoperatorname{Ker} T = dim V$
    $endgroup$
    – YuiTo Cheng
    2 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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 $mathrm{im}(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrm{rank}(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
    $endgroup$
    – Thorgott
    11 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
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Intuitive explanation of why $dimoperatorname{Im} T + dimoperatorname{Ker} T = dim V$
    $endgroup$
    – YuiTo Cheng
    2 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
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 $mathrm{im}(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrm{rank}(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
$endgroup$
– Thorgott
11 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 $mathrm{im}(f)$, hence form a basis of it and $mathrm{rank}(f)=n-k$. The result follows. I'm not sure if this is particularly illuminating though.
$endgroup$
– Thorgott
11 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
10 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
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
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
10 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
10 hours ago












$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Intuitive explanation of why $dimoperatorname{Im} T + dimoperatorname{Ker} T = dim V$
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Intuitive explanation of why $dimoperatorname{Im} T + dimoperatorname{Ker} T = dim V$
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
2 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 $operatorname{rank} T = r leqslant m$. 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
    $$
    mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & 0_{rtimes n-r} \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & 0_{m-rtimes n-r}end{pmatrix},
    $$

    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
    begin{align*}
    operatorname{rank}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim operatorname{image}T = r, \
    operatorname{nullity}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim ker T = n-r,
    end{align*}

    and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
    $$
    dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatorname{rank}T + operatorname{nullity}T.
    $$

    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
    $$
    mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & ast \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & astend{pmatrix}.
    $$

    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 10 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 $operatorname{rank} T = r leqslant m$. 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
              $$
              mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & 0_{rtimes n-r} \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & 0_{m-rtimes n-r}end{pmatrix},
              $$

              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
              begin{align*}
              operatorname{rank}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim operatorname{image}T = r, \
              operatorname{nullity}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim ker T = n-r,
              end{align*}

              and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
              $$
              dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatorname{rank}T + operatorname{nullity}T.
              $$

              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
              $$
              mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & ast \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & astend{pmatrix}.
              $$

              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 $operatorname{rank} T = r leqslant m$. 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
                $$
                mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & 0_{rtimes n-r} \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & 0_{m-rtimes n-r}end{pmatrix},
                $$

                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
                begin{align*}
                operatorname{rank}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim operatorname{image}T = r, \
                operatorname{nullity}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim ker T = n-r,
                end{align*}

                and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
                $$
                dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatorname{rank}T + operatorname{nullity}T.
                $$

                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
                $$
                mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & ast \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & astend{pmatrix}.
                $$

                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 $operatorname{rank} T = r leqslant m$. 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
                  $$
                  mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & 0_{rtimes n-r} \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & 0_{m-rtimes n-r}end{pmatrix},
                  $$

                  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
                  begin{align*}
                  operatorname{rank}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim operatorname{image}T = r, \
                  operatorname{nullity}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim ker T = n-r,
                  end{align*}

                  and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
                  $$
                  dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatorname{rank}T + operatorname{nullity}T.
                  $$

                  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
                  $$
                  mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & ast \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & astend{pmatrix}.
                  $$

                  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 $operatorname{rank} T = r leqslant m$. 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
                  $$
                  mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & 0_{rtimes n-r} \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & 0_{m-rtimes n-r}end{pmatrix},
                  $$

                  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
                  begin{align*}
                  operatorname{rank}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim operatorname{image}T = r, \
                  operatorname{nullity}T &stackrel{text{def}}{=} dim ker T = n-r,
                  end{align*}

                  and hence gain the rank-nullity theorem:
                  $$
                  dim V = n = r + (n-r) = operatorname{rank}T + operatorname{nullity}T.
                  $$

                  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
                  $$
                  mathcal M(T,v_1,dots,v_n,w_1,dots,w_m) = begin{pmatrix} I_{rtimes r} & ast \ 0_{m-rtimes r} & astend{pmatrix}.
                  $$

                  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 8 hours ago

























                  answered 10 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

                      Couldn't open a raw socket. Error: Permission denied (13) (nmap)Is it possible to run networking commands...

                      VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...

                      Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll? Announcing the arrival of...