The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Failing Linear Algebra:
Replies: 54   Last Post: Jan 10, 2007 12:47 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Guest

Watch Watch this User
Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Posted: Apr 29, 2004 4:35 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


Russell:

>Also the salient point of these variables being "free" is that they
>can be set to *anything* (not just zero) and the system holds.


Right. But, once you get a system into echelon form, one free variable is set
to one and the others to 0, then the system of basic variables are solved in
terms of one free being 1 and the rest being 0. Then, the same thing is
repeated so that each free variable equals 1 once, while holding the others at
zero. This gives the basis of the system, right?

For example:

x1 + 6x5 +x7 = 5

x2 + 4x6 = 8

x3 + x5 + 8x6 = 1

x4 + 3x5 + x7 = 10

In this system, 1-4 are basic. 5-7 are free. So, first, the system is solved
by setting x5 = 1, x6 = 0, and x7 = 0.

span = {(-1, 8, 0, 7 1,0,0)}

Then, x5 and x7 are set at 0, while x6 = 1:

span = {(5, 4, -7, 10, 0,1,0)}

Lastly, x7 is set to 1 and x5 & x6 = 0:

span={(4, 8, 1, 9, 0,0,1)}

Right? So those three become a basis?

basis = {(-1,8,0,7,1,0,0) , (5,4,-7,10,0,1,0) , (4,8,1,9,0,0,1)}

Right? So, there's the basis? dim = 3, which means the dim (kernel) is three.
But the original system is in R^7, so the dim of the image must be 4. Am I
getting this? PLEASE correct any errors. Thanks.

Any more insight as to why exactly the dimension of the kernel would be 3 would
be helpful. Is it because any of three of the variables (the free ones) can be
the zero vector and the system still holds?

>That
>means there are many, many column vectors satisfying such a
>homogeneous matrix equation, a whole r-dimensional subspace of them,
>where r is the number of free variables.


Right. I've got that. The simplest way to look at it is in the following type
of independence:

x+ y = 10

Y is the only free variable. But, x & y can both be 5. x can be 3 and y can
be 7, or vice-versa. x can be -100 and y can be 110. x can be 9.999 and y can
be 0.001, etc, etc, etc. So, is the above system independent?

Also, would the basis trick work above? If y is set to 1, then x has to be 9.
But if y is set to 0, then x has to be 10. So, is the basis: (9,1) or (10,0)?
My guess is that it would be (10,0), which can be reduced to (1,0), right?



>
>Its dimension, I think you mean. I'm not familiar with the term
>"basic variables" but yes, the dimension of the image is n-r using the
>terminology I used above.


Yes. We call all of the variables that appear first in any of the equations,
when the system is in echelon form, "basic variables". The other ones are
called "free variables". So, in any system in echelon form, the number of
basic variables equals the number of equations. Is that what you mean by
"n-r", where r is the number of free variables (dimension of the kernel)? Or,
is your "r" actually the basic variables and "n-r" the frees?

>Your single most damning confusion, as far as I can tell, is that you
>seem not able yet to distinguish between a list (or set or space) of
>vectors, and the n-tuple that describes (or is) one vector.


I don't think I can even figure out what you're saying, so it must be confusing
me. Could you provide an example please?

Are you trying to say that: {(0,3,4,5,1),(4,3,0,0,1), (1,1,4,9,1)} is a set of
three vectors, and each one of the 3 vectors is a 5-tuple? I think I've got
that down.

>Take special care to notice when a list is surrounded by {} -- that is
>a set, usually in this context a set of vectors -- and when it is
>surrounded by () -- that is (usually, in this context) an n-tuple, and
>it (usually) refers to a *single* vector.


OK, yup. I *think* I'm getting that.

>E.g. {(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)} is a set of three vectors; it's one
>of the possible basis sets for the vector space R^3. 1, 0, 0 are the
>three components of the vector (1,0,0) in R^3.


Right. Got that, thanks. I'm good with bases when they're in that form.
Otherwise, I'm having trouble, which is why the change of basis formula gets
me.



Date Subject Author
4/22/04
Read Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
4/22/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Michael N. Christoff
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Gerry Myerson
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Jonathan Miller
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
David C. Ullrich
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Acid Pooh
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
4/23/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
4/23/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Brian Borchers
4/27/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
maky m.
4/26/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
David Ames
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Michael Stemper
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
maky m.
4/23/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Porker899
4/27/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Abraham Buckingham
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Mitch Harris
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Grey Knight
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Toni Lassila
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Thomas Nordhaus
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
George Cox
4/28/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Dave Rusin
4/28/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
George Cox
4/28/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
George Cox
4/29/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Marc Olschok
4/29/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Mitch Harris
4/29/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Robert Israel
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
4/28/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
4/29/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
4/29/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
5/1/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Dave Rusin
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Russell Blackadar
4/30/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
David C. Ullrich
4/27/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
4/27/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
4/28/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Law Hiu Chung
4/30/04
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Guest
1/10/07
Read Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
David C. Ullrich

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.