Determinats,dependence, span, basis.

  • Thread starter Thread starter am_knightmare
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Span
am_knightmare
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Im having trouble under stand the relationships between determinats, span, basis.
Given a 3x3 matrix on R3 vector space.
* If determinat is 0, it is linearly dependent, will NOT span R3, is NOT a basis of R3.
, If determinant is non-zero, its linearly independent, will span R3, is a basis of R3

I was not able to confirm this statement one of my friends said, and i checked wiki as well, but didn't find a answer. Question is, is this right? can anyone confirm this? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not meaningful to say that a determinant is linealy independent, spans Rn, or is a basis for Rn. Only sets of sets of vectors can do these things. And the set of vectors of interest here is the set of column vectors of the determinant (more precicely, of the underlying matrix).

For a (quadratic) nxn-matrix A, the following four statements are equivalent, either all four of them are true or all four are false:

1. The determinant of A is nonzero.
2. The column vectors of A is a linearly independent set.
4. The column vectors of A span Rn.
5. The column vectors of A is a basis for Rn.

The corresponding is true for the row vectors.
 
I think this link might be useful to you, here I answer some of your questions...

"www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=590440"

For now I will say you're mixing up concepts. A determinant itself has nothing to do with linear dependence or with basis... a determinant is simply a number which is assigned to every quadratic matrix. If you understand what a determinant is, then you will be able to understand what the "rank of a matrix" is, which is a number assigned to every matrix (quadratic or not).

I hope I don't get banned or anything for helping you, by the way...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the replies, just what I needed Erland.
 
##\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...
Back
Top