False. A left inverse would force to be injective: if , then . Take the surjective linear map given by . Since belongs to its kernel, every composite annihilates and cannot be the identity map on .
True. Choose a basis of . By surjective function, choose with . Define the linear map by and extend by linearity. Then on every basis vector, and therefore
This constructs a right inverse and does not require to be injective. If is the zero vector space, the unique zero map is the required right inverse.
True. Use the lifted basis above and put . If , applying gives , so all . Thus the form a basis of , and takes this basis to the basis of . It is a linear isomorphism.
In fact the right inverse gives the stronger splitting
For every , write ; the first term is in the kernel and the second in . Their intersection is zero because is injective. This is a direct sum decomposition.
False. Take , , , , and . Then is a direct sum, but , so their intersection is not zero. Their ordinary sum is , as always follows from surjective function and ; the failure is precisely the direct sum assertion.
False. Take , , and . Then , but because is missing. Thus the premise does not force spanning. It need not force zero intersection either: with the same , take and . Their images still have a direct sum, while .

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.