- #1

- 319

- 0

_{1}f

_{1}(x) + c

_{2}f

_{2}(x) +...+ c

_{n}f

_{n}(x)=0, then would the linear independence be preserved if we differentiate the equation with respect to x?

- Thread starter AdrianZ
- Start date

- #1

- 319

- 0

- #2

Fredrik

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,851

- 413

If yes, then try to solve this problem first: Suppose that V is a vector space, that T:V→V is linear, and that [itex]\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}\subset V[/itex] is a linearly independent set. Do we need to assume anything else to ensure that [itex]\{Tv_1,\dots,Tv_n\}[/itex] is linearly independent?

(I can't just tell you the answer. The question is too much like a homework problem).

- #3

Deveno

Science Advisor

- 906

- 6

(by this, of course, i mean that the answer involves the colonel).

- #4

- 319

- 0

Actually I neither want to prove nor to disprove it. It was a guess that I came up with. like a conjecture. I'm asking if anyone knows the answer, because I've seen that method frequently be used in many areas of mathematics.

If yes, then try to solve this problem first: Suppose that V is a vector space, that T:V→V is linear, and that [itex]\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}\subset V[/itex] is a linearly independent set. Do we need to assume anything else to ensure that [itex]\{Tv_1,\dots,Tv_n\}[/itex] is linearly independent?

(I can't just tell you the answer. The question is too much like a homework problem).

If It's true, then a proof that requires no more advanced math than linear algebra will be highly appreciated.

About your question, it depends on T. I haven't thought about it yet but I guess if T is an invertible mapping, then the answer would be yes.

Would you be more precise?

(by this, of course, i mean that the answer involves the colonel).

- #5

Fredrik

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,851

- 413

The problem I came up with doesn't require anything advanced. But we need to assume something that ensures that Tx=0 implies that x=0. So we assume that T is injective, or equivalently, that ker T={0}. (Hence the chicken reference).

Now, is the derivative operator [itex]f\mapsto f'[/itex] injective? (I like to denote it by D. So Df=f').

- #6

Deveno

Science Advisor

- 906

- 6

T(f) = f' = Df

show that T preserves linear independence iff ker(T) = {0}.

(ker(T) is the null space of T. it might help to think about constant functions, first).

- #7

- 319

- 0

Well, It's obviously necessary that Tx=0 implies x=0, because if not, the set {Tv

The problem I came up with doesn't require anything advanced. But we need to assume something that ensures that Tx=0 implies that x=0. So we assume that T is injective, or equivalently, that ker T={0}. (Hence the chicken reference).

Now, is the derivative operator [itex]f\mapsto f'[/itex] injective? (I like to denote it by D. So Df=f').

To show that It's sufficient, let's take an arbitrary linear combination of Tv

according to a theorem in calculus and real analysis, if Df=0 then f is a constant function. we conclude that the kernel of D consists of all constant functions.

so D as a linear operator is not generally injective, but for all non-constant functions, can we say that D preserves linear independence?

so if T is an invertible operator, we surely can say that it preserves linear independence. 'cuz it's kernel is trivial. right?

Yes. Thanks for the help. By the way, what's the story of the colonel and fried chicken in linear algebra? haven't figured that out yet. lol.

T(f) = f' = Df

show that T preserves linear independence iff ker(T) = {0}.

(ker(T) is the null space of T. it might help to think about constant functions, first).

- #8

Fredrik

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,851

- 413

People in the USA pronounce "Colonel" and "kernel" the same. The KFC franchise, originally named Kentucky Fried Chicken, was founded by Colonel Sanders.

- #9

- 319

- 0

Thanks for the help guys.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 969

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 712

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K