Extending a Set of 3 Orthogonal Vectors to a Basis in R^5

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathewsMD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis
MathewsMD
Messages
430
Reaction score
7
I've attached the question to this post. The answer is true, but I'm trying to figure out why.

Using Gram-Schmidt, I can only necessarily find 3 orthogonal vectors given 3 linearly independent vectors from ## R^5 ##. How then is it possible to extend this set of 3 vectors that are linearly independent to form a basis of ## R^5##? Unless I'm missing something here, the question is asking if this set can be extended to span ALL of ## R^5 ## (i.e. a basis of this space) and not just a subspace, correct? How exactly can 3 vectors do this? I believe recalling an analog to the cross product in ##R^5## but we surely did not cover this in our class. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 5.31.54 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 5.31.54 PM.png
    4.9 KB · Views: 446
Physics news on Phys.org
The point is that it is possible to find two vectors which added to the given three form a set of five linearly independent vectors. Example: (1,0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0,0) should work.
 
Have you checked to see whether these three vectors are independent? If they are, what would that tell you? (Hint: you should know a very simple basis for \mathbb{R}^5. If these are independent throw these vectors in with that basis and use your knowledge about how a basis works). Note that nothing in the question says you need to end up with an orthonormal basis at the end.

If you haven't checked to see if these are independent, do so first: Try starting
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> x = \begin{bmatrix} 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 5 \end{bmatrix} &amp; \\<br /> y = \begin{bmatrix} 1 &amp; 2 &amp; 3 &amp; 4 &amp; 5 \end{bmatrix} &amp; \\<br /> z = \begin{bmatrix} 1 &amp; 4 &amp; 9 &amp; 16 &amp; 25 \end{bmatrix}<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Then see whether the equation ay + bz = x has any non-trivial solutions.
 
mathman said:
The point is that it is possible to find two vectors which added to the given three form a set of five linearly independent vectors. Example: (1,0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0,0) should work.

Ahh, ok. Thank you. I misinterpreted what they were asking.
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top