MHB Bilinear Function and Gramian Matrix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sudharaka
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Matrix
Sudharaka
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone, :)

Here's a question which I am not sure whether my approach is correct. My understanding about Bilinear functions and Gramian matrix is limited, so this might be totally wrong. Hope you can provide some insight. :)

Question:

A bilinear function \(f:\Re^3\times \Re^3 \rightarrow \Re \) is given in standard basis \(\{e_1,\,e_2,\,e_3\}\) by the Gram matrix,

\[G_f=\begin{pmatrix}4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix}\]

Find the left and a right kernel of \(f\).

My Solution:

I would find the left kernel of \(f\) using,

\[\left\{v\in\Re^3:\, \begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u_1\\u_2\\u_3 \end{pmatrix}=0\mbox{ for all } \begin{pmatrix} u_1 \\u_2 \\u_3 \end{pmatrix} \in \Re^3 \right\}\]

and the right kernel of \(f\) using,

\[\left\{u\in\Re^3:\, \begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u_1\\u_2\\u_3 \end{pmatrix}=0\mbox{ for all } \begin{pmatrix} v_1 &v_2 &v_3 \end{pmatrix} \in \Re^3 \right\}\]

Is this approach correct? Is this how the left and right kernels are given when the bilinear function is represented by the so called Gramian matrix? :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sudharaka said:
Hi everyone, :)

Here's a question which I am not sure whether my approach is correct. My understanding about Bilinear functions and Gramian matrix is limited, so this might be totally wrong. Hope you can provide some insight. :)

Question:

A bilinear function \(f:\Re^3\times \Re^3 \rightarrow \Re \) is given in standard basis \(\{e_1,\,e_2,\,e_3\}\) by the Gram matrix,

\[G_f=\begin{pmatrix}4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix}\]

Find the left and a right kernel of \(f\).

My Solution:

I would find the left kernel of \(f\) using,

\[\left\{v\in\Re^3:\, \begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u_1\\u_2\\u_3 \end{pmatrix}=0\mbox{ for all } \begin{pmatrix} u_1 \\u_2 \\u_3 \end{pmatrix} \in \Re^3 \right\}\]

and the right kernel of \(f\) using,

\[\left\{u\in\Re^3:\, \begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u_1\\u_2\\u_3 \end{pmatrix}=0\mbox{ for all } \begin{pmatrix} v_1 &v_2 &v_3 \end{pmatrix} \in \Re^3 \right\}\]

Is this approach correct? Is this how the left and right kernels are given when the bilinear function is represented by the so called Gramian matrix? :)

Sure.
Looks good.

You can simplify it a bit though.
You can find the left kernel of \(f\) using:
\[\left\{v\in \mathbb R^3:\, v^T \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix}=0 \right\}\]
That amounts to the same thing.
Do you see why?

Note that these are the eigenvectors of the transpose for the eigenvalue 0.
 
I like Serena said:
Sure.
Looks good.

You can simplify it a bit though.
You can find the left kernel of \(f\) using:
\[\left\{v\in \mathbb R^3:\, v^T \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix}=0 \right\}\]
That amounts to the same thing.
Do you see why?

Note that these are the eigenvectors of the transpose for the eigenvalue 0.

Thanks very much for the confirmation. Of course I see it. Since,

\[\begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u_1\\u_2\\u_3 \end{pmatrix}=0\]

holds for each vector \(\begin{pmatrix} u_1\\u_2\\u_3 \end{pmatrix}\) we can choose any two vectors \(\begin{pmatrix} u^1_1\\u^1_2\\u^1_3 \end{pmatrix}\) and \(\begin{pmatrix} u^2_1\\u^2_2\\u^2_3 \end{pmatrix}\) such that,

\[\begin{pmatrix} u^1_1\\u^1_2\\u^1_3 \end{pmatrix}\neq\begin{pmatrix} u^2_1\\u^2_2\\u^2_3 \end{pmatrix}\]

Then,

\[ \begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u^1_1\\u^1_2\\u^1_3 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u^2_1\\u^2_2\\u^2_3\end{pmatrix}=0\]

Hence,

\[\begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix}\left( \begin{pmatrix} u^1_1\\u^1_2\\u^1_3 \end{pmatrix} -\begin{pmatrix}u^2_1\\u^2_2\\u^2_3\end{pmatrix} \right)=0\]

Since,

\[ \begin{pmatrix} u^1_1\\u^1_2\\u^1_3 \end{pmatrix} -\begin{pmatrix}u^2_1\\u^2_2\\u^2_3\end{pmatrix} \neq 0\]

\[\begin{pmatrix}v_1& v_2& v_3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4&3&2\\1&3&5\\3&6&9 \end{pmatrix}=0\]

Is there a shorter version for this? :)
 
Looks good! :)

Is there a shorter version for this?

Hmm, a shorter version?

How about:

Let A be the matrix.

Suppose we have a $v$ in the left kernel such that $v^T A \ne 0$.
Then there is a vector $u$ such that $v^T A u \ne 0$
This is a contradiction.

If on the other hand we pick any $v$ such that $v^T A = 0$, then for any $u$ we have $v^T A u = 0$.

Therefore the left kernel is the set of all $v$ with $v^T A = 0$. $\qquad \blacksquare$
 
I like Serena said:
Looks good! :)
Hmm, a shorter version?

How about:

Let A be the matrix.

Suppose we have a $v$ in the left kernel such that $v^T A \ne 0$.
Then there is a vector $u$ such that $v^T A u \ne 0$
This is a contradiction.

If on the other hand we pick any $v$ such that $v^T A = 0$, then for any $u$ we have $v^T A u = 0$.

Therefore the left kernel is the set of all $v$ with $v^T A = 0$. $\qquad \blacksquare$

Thanks very much Serena. :) Indeed this is something much more simpler.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Back
Top