Find a 3x3 Matrix such that....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jtechguy21
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    3x3 Matrix
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a non-zero 3x3 matrix that does not include a specific vector, \(\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 2 \\ 3 \end{bmatrix}\), in its range. Participants are exploring the implications of this requirement and the properties of matrices in relation to their range and kernel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the definition of range and the conditions under which a matrix can exclude a specific vector from its outputs. Some suggest considering matrices that nullify certain components of vectors, while others explore the concept of the kernel and its dimensionality in relation to the problem.

Discussion Status

There is an active exploration of ideas, with participants questioning their understanding of the problem and the mathematical concepts involved. Some have provided insights into potential approaches, such as using matrices that "kill" the specified vector or considering the rank-nullity theorem, while others express uncertainty about certain terms and concepts.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that they have not yet covered certain topics, such as transposes and the rank-nullity theorem, which may affect their ability to fully engage with the problem. There is also mention of the need for clarification on the implications of the matrix's properties.

Jtechguy21
Messages
51
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find a non zero matrix(3x3) that does not have
vector_zpsvsstw1t3.jpg
in its range. Make sure your matrix does as it should.

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I know a range is a set of output vectors, Can anyone help me clarify the question?
I'm just not sure specifically what its asking of me, in regards to the matrix I am looking for.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are asked to find a 3 by 3 matrix, A, such that Ax is NOT equal to \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 2 \\ 3 \end{bmatrix} for any x. This does not have a single correct aswer. The trivial solution, the zero matrix, would be such a matrix because the zero matrix times any x is the 0 vector- but that is specifically excluded- you must give a "non-zero" matrix. There are still an infinite number of such matrices. What about a matrix that makes the first component of any vector 0? Or the second or third component? (But not all three).
 
Jtechguy21 said:

Homework Statement



Find a non zero matrix(3x3) that does not have
vector_zpsvsstw1t3.jpg
in its range. Make sure your matrix does as it should.

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I know a range is a set of output vectors, Can anyone help me clarify the question?
I'm just not sure specifically what its asking of me, in regards to the matrix I am looking for.

You are being asked to find a ##3 \times 3## matrix ##A## for which the vector ##\vec{r} = \langle 1,2,3 \rangle^T ## (transpose) is an impossible output; that is, you want##A \vec{x} \neq \vec{r}## for ALL input vectors ##\vec{x} \in R^3##.
 
We haven't learned about tranpose yet in class(but i just briefly looked it up right now)

What is the purpose of taking the transpose of the the column vector 1 2 3 in this case?

So I find this A= 3x3 matrix that when I multiply it by any column vector(x,y,z) the ouput does not equal r<1,2,3>T is this correct?
 
Jtechguy21 said:
We haven't learned about tranpose yet in class(but i just briefly looked it up right now)

What is the purpose of taking the transpose of the the column vector 1 2 3 in this case?

So I find this A= 3x3 matrix that when I multiply it by any column vector(x,y,z) the ouput does not equal r<1,2,3>T is this correct?

Is that not what I just said?

Anyway, writing a transpose simplifies typing. Instead of taking 3 lines to write the column vector like this:
\left[ \begin{array}{c}1\\2\\3 \end{array} \right]
we can write it in one line, like this: ##(1,2,3)^T## or ##\langle 1,2,3 \rangle^T##, as the transpose of a row-vector.
 
Last edited:
You can use rank-nullity: just use a matrix that "kills" the vector ## (1,2,3)^T ##, say.
 
Ray Vickson said:
Is that not what I just said?

Anyway, writing a transpose simplifies typing. Instead of taking 3 lines to write the column vector like this:
\left[ \begin{array}{c}1\\2\\3 \end{array} \right]
we can write it in one line, like this: ##(1,2,3)^T## or ##\langle 1,2,3 \rangle^T##, as the transpose of a row-vector.

Thanks for explaining that to me.
 
WWGD said:
You can use rank-nullity: just use a matrix that "kills" the vector ## (1,2,3)^T ##, say.

Sounds interesting. Unfortunately we have not covered this yet(2nd week in) but I am watching a youtube videos to see how this "Killing" things works.
 
HallsofIvy said:
You are asked to find a 3 by 3 matrix, A, such that Ax is NOT equal to \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 2 \\ 3 \end{bmatrix} for any x. This does not have a single correct aswer. The trivial solution, the zero matrix, would be such a matrix because the zero matrix times any x is the 0 vector- but that is specifically excluded- you must give a "non-zero" matrix. There are still an infinite number of such matrices. What about a matrix that makes the first component of any vector 0? Or the second or third component? (But not all three).

thanks for your input. I had a feeling that's exactly what it meant, but sometimes i doubt my self with these kind of things. and when I was trying to understand the problem I figured there was more than one answer(you confirmed it)

When you refer to x, does that mean the column vector with x,y,z (any x ,y,z, values) which when multiplied by Matrix A does not equal specified range?
 
  • #10
Jtechguy21 said:
Sounds interesting. Unfortunately we have not covered this yet(2nd week in) but I am watching a youtube videos to see how this "Killing" things works.

I don't know if you have had the following material yet, but in 2d or 3d it is "obvious" from diagrams: given a fixed vector ##\vec{u}##, any vector ##\vec{v}## can be decomposed into a component ##\vec{v}_{||}## parallel to ##\vec{u}## and a component ##\vec{v}_{\perp}## perpendicular to ##\vec{u}##. (Think of decomposing a force in Physics into components parallel and perpendicular to some given direction.)

What would happen if, for every vector ##\vec{v}## you took the perpendicular component ##\vec{v}_{\perp}##? Is the operation ##\vec{v} \rightarrow \vec{v}_{\perp}## a linear operation?
 
  • #11
My idea is this: you can use a matrix whose kernel is either 1- , 2- , or 3- dimensional ( if the kernel is 0-dimensional, the matrix is invertible, so ## Ax=b ## has a solution for any b, including, in particular, ##(1,2,3)^T##. If the kernel is 3-dimensional, you get the ##0##-matrix ). So include , in each case, ##(1,2,3)^T## as a basis vector in the kernel of a matrix. You can also use the fundamental theorem of linear algebra:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_linear_algebra
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K