Help using Cramer's rule to show properties of determinants

GimB0id
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
New here, have an assignment concerning Cramer's rule which I think I have a decent understanding of - I can use it to find determinants - but am a little lost on a few questions.

Given the set of linear equations:
a11 x1 + a12 x2 + a13 x3 = 0
a22 x2 + a23 x3 = 0
a33 x3 = 0

assume D = 0 (determinant), this implies that at least 1 of a22 or a33 is 0. show if x !=0 then D != 0

My try:
when I do D I get -> (a11 a22 a33), but if a22 or a33 is 0, then D=0. So I'm not sure what is going on here as if a33 = 0 then x3 can be anything, implying x!=0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
D = 0 could imply that a11 = 0 as well.

On the whole, the problem doesn't make sense to me as stated. The determinant of a linear transformation is independent of the value of the vector that it operates on so x being zero would have nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
aPhilosopher said:
D = 0 could imply that a11 = 0 as well.

On the whole, the problem doesn't make sense to me as stated. The determinate of a linear transformation is independent of the value of the vector that it operates on so x being zero would have nothing to do with it.

right, a11 could be 0 also. I also don't quite understand the question, I was hoping it was a lack of knowledge on my part as to why I didn't understand it.
 
GimB0id said:
New here, have an assignment concerning Cramer's rule which I think I have a decent understanding of - I can use it to find determinants - but am a little lost on a few questions.

Given the set of linear equations:
a11 x1 + a12 x2 + a13 x3 = 0
a22 x2 + a23 x3 = 0
a33 x3 = 0
So this can be expressed as the matrix equation
\begin{bmatrix}a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} \\ 0 & a_{22} & a_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & a_{33}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x_1 \\ x_2 \\ x3\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}

It easy to show that the determinant of the matrix is a_{11}a_{22}a_{33}

assume D = 0 (determinant), this implies that at least 1 of a22 or a33 is 0. show if x !=0 then D != 0

My try:
when I do D I get -> (a11 a22 a33), but if a22 or a33 is 0, then D=0. So I'm not sure what is going on here as if a33 = 0 then x3 can be anything, implying x!=0?
Yes, the determinant is a_{11}a_{22}a_{33} as you say and that equals 0 if and only if anyone of a_{11}, a_{22}, a_{33} is 0. The part about "if x != 0" I don't understand. Are you sure you have copied the problem correctly? It is true that if there exist a non-zero x satifying that equation, the the determinant must be 0. If the determinant is 0, there is only the single solution x= 0.
 
I think this is a poorly written question, my prof. gave us some minimal notes and there's typos all over the place so I'm going to talk to him to find out what he wants as I suspect there's typos in the question.
 
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
204
Replies
37
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top