MHB Extending Vectors to a Basis of R^4: Why Notation Matters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yankel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Linear
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello all

I am trying to solve this problem:

Extend the following vectors to a basis of R^4.

\[u_{1}=\left ( \begin{matrix} 1\\1 \\1 \\1 \end{matrix} \right )\]

and

\[u_{2}=\left ( \begin{matrix} 2\\2 \\3 \\4 \end{matrix} \right )\]

What I did, I put these vectors as columns of a matrix, and surprisingly I found that they are already linear independent. In the book where I took it from, they put the vectors as rows, and they were dependent. I don't understand. I always put vectors as columns when I want to check for dependency, span, or linear combination. How come this time it has to be as rows ? Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure the book is using the same notation as you, i.e. multiplying vectors on the right rather than the left? If it is using the "opposite" notation then things will be changed around, including row/column stuff. Your question isn't very clear.

Anyway, your two vectors are certainly linearly independent, but they aren't a basis of R^4, for they do not span R^4 (their span is not R^4 but some hyperplane of dimension 2). Remember that for a set of vectors to be a basis of a vector space they need to be linearly independent as well as span the vector space. Thus a basis of R^4 necessarily is a set of exactly four vectors, since R^4 has dimension 4.

To "extend" this set of vectors to a basis of R^4 you need to find another vector that cannot be expressed as a linear combination of the two you have, and then you need to find one more vector that cannot be expressed as a linear combination of the previous three. At that point you will find that every vector you choose can be written as a linear combination of the four vectors you have, and that will be your basis. Needless to say, there is more than one possible basis.​
 
##\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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top