EQUALITY OF ROW AND COLUMN RANK (O'Neil's proof) Is there smt wrong?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the proof of Theorem 7.9 regarding the equality of row and column rank, specifically questioning O'Neil's assertion that the dimension of the column space is at most r. The contributor argues that the first r columns of a set of vectors are linearly independent, indicating that the dimension should be exactly r, not at most r. They emphasize that it is impossible to derive a leading 1 in the first coordinate from the remaining vectors, reinforcing their claim of linear independence. The contributor seeks clarification on whether O'Neil's proof is indeed flawed or if both interpretations can coexist without contradiction. The conversation highlights a potential misunderstanding or misinterpretation of linear independence in the context of the theorem.
alexyflemming
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
EQUALITY OF ROW AND COLUMN RANK (o'Neil's proof) Is there smt wrong?

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=znorkrmk3k1otjd&thumb=6

Theorem 7.9: EQUALITY OF ROW AND COLUMN RANK
Proof: Page 210.

It writes:...
so the dimension of this column space is AT MOST r (equal to r if these columns are linearly independent, less than r if they are not)

I THINK THIS IS WRONG. Look at the r vectors:
1 0
0 1
: 0
0 :
BETAr+1,1 BETAr+1,2
:
BETAm1 BETAm2


The first r columns of these r vectors are e1,e2,...er. Hence, they are DEFINITELY LINEARLY INDEPENDENT.
There is no way to obtain 1 in the first coordinate of the first of the r vectors from the remaining r-1 vectors since the 1st coordinate of all of the remaining r-1 vectors are all 0.

Hence, the correct one should be:

so the dimension of this column space is EXACTLY r.

Where am I wrong? or O'neil's is really wrong as I indicated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
there is no contradiction between his statement and yours, and in fact both statements are true.
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
22K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K