Direct sums and isomorphisms
About points...
We associate a certain number of points with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
About difficulty...
We associate a certain difficulty with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
Question
Solution
Short
Video
\(\LaTeX\)
No explanation / solution video to this exercise has yet been created.
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Exercise:
Let V be a vector space over K Usubseteq V a subspace and U'subseteq V another subspace shich is a complement of U in V recall: this means U+U'V and Ucap U'. Then the map phi:Uoplus U'longrightarrow V phiuu':u+u' is a linear isomorphism.
Solution:
Proof of linearity. Linearity of phi follows directly from the dfinitions. Proof of injectivity of phi. Suppose phiuu' Longrightarrow u+u' Longrightarrow u-u'. But U' is a complement of U hence Ucap U' by definition. So U-U implies that UU' Longrightarrow uu'. This proves that textKerphi_Uoplus U' hence phi is injective. Proof of surjectivity of phi. Since U' is a complement of U in V we have by definition that U+U'V. Let vin V exists uin U u'in U' s.t. u+u'v Longrightarrow phiuu'v. This shows textImphiV i.e. phi is surjective. When U' is a complement of U in V then U+U'V and we also have a canonical isomorphism Uoplus U' longrightarrow V. But formally speaking Uoplus U^ is a different vector space than V.
Let V be a vector space over K Usubseteq V a subspace and U'subseteq V another subspace shich is a complement of U in V recall: this means U+U'V and Ucap U'. Then the map phi:Uoplus U'longrightarrow V phiuu':u+u' is a linear isomorphism.
Solution:
Proof of linearity. Linearity of phi follows directly from the dfinitions. Proof of injectivity of phi. Suppose phiuu' Longrightarrow u+u' Longrightarrow u-u'. But U' is a complement of U hence Ucap U' by definition. So U-U implies that UU' Longrightarrow uu'. This proves that textKerphi_Uoplus U' hence phi is injective. Proof of surjectivity of phi. Since U' is a complement of U in V we have by definition that U+U'V. Let vin V exists uin U u'in U' s.t. u+u'v Longrightarrow phiuu'v. This shows textImphiV i.e. phi is surjective. When U' is a complement of U in V then U+U'V and we also have a canonical isomorphism Uoplus U' longrightarrow V. But formally speaking Uoplus U^ is a different vector space than V.
Meta Information
Exercise:
Let V be a vector space over K Usubseteq V a subspace and U'subseteq V another subspace shich is a complement of U in V recall: this means U+U'V and Ucap U'. Then the map phi:Uoplus U'longrightarrow V phiuu':u+u' is a linear isomorphism.
Solution:
Proof of linearity. Linearity of phi follows directly from the dfinitions. Proof of injectivity of phi. Suppose phiuu' Longrightarrow u+u' Longrightarrow u-u'. But U' is a complement of U hence Ucap U' by definition. So U-U implies that UU' Longrightarrow uu'. This proves that textKerphi_Uoplus U' hence phi is injective. Proof of surjectivity of phi. Since U' is a complement of U in V we have by definition that U+U'V. Let vin V exists uin U u'in U' s.t. u+u'v Longrightarrow phiuu'v. This shows textImphiV i.e. phi is surjective. When U' is a complement of U in V then U+U'V and we also have a canonical isomorphism Uoplus U' longrightarrow V. But formally speaking Uoplus U^ is a different vector space than V.
Let V be a vector space over K Usubseteq V a subspace and U'subseteq V another subspace shich is a complement of U in V recall: this means U+U'V and Ucap U'. Then the map phi:Uoplus U'longrightarrow V phiuu':u+u' is a linear isomorphism.
Solution:
Proof of linearity. Linearity of phi follows directly from the dfinitions. Proof of injectivity of phi. Suppose phiuu' Longrightarrow u+u' Longrightarrow u-u'. But U' is a complement of U hence Ucap U' by definition. So U-U implies that UU' Longrightarrow uu'. This proves that textKerphi_Uoplus U' hence phi is injective. Proof of surjectivity of phi. Since U' is a complement of U in V we have by definition that U+U'V. Let vin V exists uin U u'in U' s.t. u+u'v Longrightarrow phiuu'v. This shows textImphiV i.e. phi is surjective. When U' is a complement of U in V then U+U'V and we also have a canonical isomorphism Uoplus U' longrightarrow V. But formally speaking Uoplus U^ is a different vector space than V.
Contained in these collections:

