Is it possible to prove linear dependence using a simple approach?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the linear dependence of a set of vectors in \mathbb{R}^n, specifically transitioning from a linearly dependent set of three vectors to a larger set that includes an additional vector.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of linear dependence and consider how it applies to both the original and extended sets of vectors. Questions arise regarding the implications of including a vector that may or may not be in the span of the original set.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the relationship between the original set and the additional vector, while others express confusion about the conditions under which the proof holds. There is an acknowledgment of the potential for different interpretations of the problem.

Contextual Notes

Concerns are raised about the assumption that the additional vector is not in the span of the original set, which could affect the proof of linear dependence.

tandoorichicken
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
This may be a really simple proof but its giving me grief.

If {[itex]v_1, v_2, v_3[/itex]} is a linearly dependent set of vectors in [itex]\mathbb{R}^n[/itex], show that {[itex]v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4[/itex]} is also linearly dependent, where [itex]v_4[/itex] is any other vector in [itex]\mathbb{R}^n[/itex].

Any hints on where to start? I started out by writing out all the claims that could be made by taking the first set of vectors to be linearly independent, but that didn't get me terribly far. :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The definition of lineair dependence (or at least an equivalent statement) is that you can form the zero-vector with a lineair combination of your vectors without having all 0 coefficients. Now, you can do that for your first set, would you be able to do it too for the second one?
 
i don't like this question because it doesn't exlude a v_4 that is in the span of the first set of vectors.

in that case, the second set WOULD be dependent!

 
Brad Barker said:
in that case, the second set WOULD be dependent!

But that's exactly what you want to prove, so your proof is finished!
 
I think I got it. The rule basically says the weights c_1, c_2, ... c_n can't all be equal to zero at the same time. If the first set is already linearly dependent, i.e. [itex]c_1\vec{v}_1 + c_2\vec{v}_2 + c_3\vec{v}_3 = 0[/itex], then we can take c_4 = 0, which would make [itex]c_1\vec{v}_1 + c_2\vec{v}_2 + c_3\vec{v}_3 + c_4\vec{v}_4 = 0[/itex] as well, therefore the second set is also linearly dependent.
 
That's what I meant :smile:
 
oh!

i thought it said INdependent!

:smile:
 
tandoorichicken said:
I think I got it. The rule basically says the weights c_1, c_2, ... c_n can't all be equal to zero at the same time. If the first set is already linearly dependent, i.e. [itex]c_1\vec{v}_1 + c_2\vec{v}_2 + c_3\vec{v}_3 = 0[/itex], then we can take c_4 = 0, which would make [itex]c_1\vec{v}_1 + c_2\vec{v}_2 + c_3\vec{v}_3 + c_4\vec{v}_4 = 0[/itex] as well, therefore the second set is also linearly dependent.

yep, that's it. good job.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K