(In)consistent and (In)dependent SystemsDate: 01/02/2007 at 15:16:39 From: Molly Subject: (In)consistent and (in)dependent systems I was wondering why when solving systems of equations the types of systems are referred to as "consistent/inconsistent" and "dependent/independent". I understand which type of system each one defines, I'm just wondering why those vocabulary words were chosen. I'm not confused so much as I am curious. Date: 01/02/2007 at 23:37:42 From: Doctor Peterson Subject: Re: (In)consistent and (in)dependent systems Hi, Molly. Part of the answer can be found here: Consistent Dependent, Consistent Independent, Inconsistent Linear Equations http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62538.html I'll give you my explanation of the reason for the specific terms, which I think works pretty well (and makes a fun story to tell!). First, imagine you're a judge, and two witnesses to a traffic accident come before you. If they say 1. A red-haired lady ran the red light and hit the pedestrian. 2. A bald man ran the red light and hit the pedestrian. what would you say? The testimonies are INCONSISTENT--they can't both be true! We can't use them to convict anyone. That's what happens when a system of equations is inconsistent--they can't all be true (at the same time), so there is no solution. If the system (or witnesses) are CONSISTENT, that means they DO fit together, and there IS at least one solution. Now suppose they say this: 1. A red-haired lady ran the red light and hit the pedestrian. 2. A red-haired lady ran the red light and hit the pedestrian. The second seems to have copied the first; he adds no information. We can say his testimony is DEPENDENT on the other; we don't have two independent witnesses. As a result, we don't have enough evidence for a conviction. When a system of equations is dependent, it means that we can construct one of them from the others (by adding and multiplying, as you do when solving by elimination), so that equation doesn't add anything to our knowledge of the problem. If we have three equations in three unknowns, but they are dependent, we don't really have three "independent witnesses", so there is not enough information to convict --that is, to find a single solution. Any red-haired lady might have done it. What the judge likes to see is a pair of witnesses who present different sides of the story, and add up to a complete identification of the accused: 1. A red-haired lady ran the red light and hit the pedestrian. 2. A six-foot-tall woman with alcohol on her breath knocked the man over. Now we have two INDEPENDENT witnesses whose testimonies are CONSISTENT --we can put them together and get the information we need. When a system of n equations in n unknowns is both consistent (not contradictory) and independent (not duplicating information) then we will have exactly one solution. Each equation is a single witness, giving one "line" of evidence; with two equations in a plane, the two lines taken together "point" to a single solution. Similarly, in three-dimensional space, three equations represent three planes, and when they are consistent and independent, they will meet in only one place. Guilty! Does that make it clearer? - Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ Date: 01/03/2007 at 09:06:49 From: Molly Subject: Thank you ((In)consistent and (in)dependent systems) Wow, thanks Dr. Peterson. That makes complete sense and now I actually understand the words (and thus the systems) instead of just memorizing them!!! |
Search the Dr. Math Library: |
[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]
Ask Dr. Math^{TM}
© 1994-2013 The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/