Basis of Nullspace: Linear Algebra & Differential Equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter dschmidt12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Nullspace
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding the basis for the nullspace of a matrix in a linear algebra and differential equations context. A key point is that if the determinant of a matrix is zero, the matrix is not invertible, which implies that the nullspace is not trivial. The nullspace consists of all vectors x such that Ax = 0, and if A is invertible, the only solution is x = 0. The relationship between solutions of the equation Ax = r and the nullspace is also highlighted, emphasizing that if A has an inverse, it is one-to-one. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the properties of linear transformations and their implications in linear algebra.
dschmidt12
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I am in a linear algebra and differential equations course and have recently been learning how to find a basis for a nullspace, row space, or column space. However, I am EXTREMELY confused by a solution to a question in my textbook. The question asks to find the basis for the null space of a particular matrix. For the question at hand, the determinant is zero, which of course means that it is invertible. However, I'm confused as to why this means that there is no basis for this nullspace -- there is no relevant explanation in my text as far as I can tell. Thank you to anyone who can help solve this problem for me!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the determinant is zero then the matrix is not invertible
 
I'm sorry, I meant to write not zero...my mistake; that makes a big difference. :)
 
This all stems from the fact that matrices distribute over vectors and commute with scalar multiplication: i.e, the fact that matrices are linear transformations.

If Av=0 and Ax=r then A(v + x) = Av + Ax = 0 + r = r.

If I have one solution to Ax = r, then I also have a solution for every element of the nullspace. In this situation, how would I write A-1? Is it A-1r = x or A-1r = x + v? They both get sent to r by A.

This means that a matrix can only be invertible if the nullspace is trivial, in other words, if only zero gets sent to zero.
 
"Nullspace of A" is, by definition, the set of vectors, x, such that Ax= 0. If A has an inverse, take A^{-1} on both sides: A^{-1}Ax= x= A^{-1}0= 0.

That is, if A is invertible, Ax= 0 only for x= 0.

It is true, then that if A is invertible, it is one-to-one.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K