Intuitive explanation of the rank-nullity theorem Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm 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.

What does Turing mean by this statement?

How fail-safe is nr as stop bytes?

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

Project Euler #1 in C++

Antipodal Land Area Calculation

What initially awakened the Balrog?

Is there public access to the Meteor Crater in Arizona?

Amount of permutations on an NxNxN Rubik's Cube

Customizing QGIS plugins

Is multiple magic items in one inherently imbalanced?

What is Adi Shankara referring to when he says "He has Vajra marks on his feet"?

What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?

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

What is the difference between globalisation and imperialism?

Can a Beast Master ranger change beast companions?

Significance of Cersei's obsession with elephants?

Flash light on something

What to do with repeated rejections for phd position

How to report t statistic from R

Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines

One-one communication

Is CEO the "profession" with the most psychopaths?

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

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



Intuitive explanation of the rank-nullity theorem



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm 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
    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
    2 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
    2 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
    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
    2 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
    2 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 59 mins ago









Alex Ortiz

11.6k21442




11.6k21442










asked 3 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
    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
    2 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
    2 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
    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
    2 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
    2 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
3 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
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
2 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
2 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
2 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
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 $operatornamerank T = r leqslant m$. 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 2 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 57 mins ago

























                  answered 2 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

                      Isabella Eugénie Boyer Biographie | Références | Menu de navigationmodifiermodifier le codeComparator to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount – 1774 to Present.

                      Join wedge with single bond in chemfigHow to make only one part of double bond bold with chemfig?Crossing bonds in chemfigjoining atoms in chemfig. Two adjacent molculesHow do I selectively change bond length in chemfig?Ugly bond joints in chemfigchemfig: reaction above arrowUsing the mhchem and chemfig packages in conjunctionBonding to specific element letter using chemfigResonance hybrids in chemfigScale chemfig molecule in beamer with tikzWhy does this chemfig bond with a hook start in the middle of the atom?

                      Are small insurances worth itIs insurance worth it if you can afford to replace the item? If not, when is it?Is accident insurance worth it for my kids who play sportsIs insuring property for more than it is worth allowed?At what point does it become worth it to file an insurance claim?Are wage loss insurance programs worth the cost compared to having an emergency fund?When is an event worth insuring against?Is insurance worth it if you can afford to replace the item? If not, when is it?FHA loan just commenced : Any way to get any of the up-front mortgage insurance back?Which types of insurances do I need to buy?Should I carry less renter's insurance if I can self-insure?Mortgage Adviser Signed Me Up For Multiple Home and Life Insurances (UK)Why many travel insurances don't cover country of nationality?