How do I show that the vectors of an invertible MX are indepedent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Minhtran1092
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors
Minhtran1092
Messages
28
Reaction score
2
Suppose we have an nxn matrix A with column vectors v1,...,vn. A is invertible. With rank(A)=n. How do I prove that v1,...,vn are linearly independent?

I think I can prove this by using the fact that rank(A)=n, which tells me that there is a pivot in each of the n columns of the rref(A) matrix (because rref(invertible mx) gives an identity matrix). I'm not sure how to interpret this result to show that each column vector are linearly independent though.

Should I look at the linear combination of an identity matrix to establish independence?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know how to go about the proof. However, if the v's are linearly dependent, then det(A) = 0 and the matrix is not invertible.
 
Minhtran1092 said:
Suppose we have an nxn matrix A with column vectors v1,...,vn. A is invertible. With rank(A)=n. How do I prove that v1,...,vn are linearly independent?

I think I can prove this by using the fact that rank(A)=n, which tells me that there is a pivot in each of the n columns of the rref(A) matrix (because rref(invertible mx) gives an identity matrix). I'm not sure how to interpret this result to show that each column vector are linearly independent though.

Should I look at the linear combination of an identity matrix to establish independence?


Not sure what you mean by pivot and rref so I can't help you directly.

But if the vectors were linearly dependent the some linear combination of them would be zero - by definition. The coefficients of this linear combination form another vector. What is the matrix multiplied by this vector?
 
lavinia said:
Not sure what you mean by pivot and rref so I can't help you directly.

But if the vectors were linearly dependent the some linear combination of them would be zero - by definition. The coefficients of this linear combination form another vector. What is the matrix multiplied by this vector?

rref stands for the Reduced Row Echelon Form operation on a calculator (which operates on a matrix to give the reduced row echelon form of some given matrix). rref(A) gives reduced row echelon form of A.

A pivot of a row refers to the leading 1 in the respective row of the rref of some MX.

I don't follow where you mentioned that the linear comb. of some dependent vectors would be zero.
 
Minhtran1092 said:
I don't follow where you mentioned that the linear comb. of some dependent vectors would be zero.

That is just the definition of "linearly dependent".

If the ##v_i## are linearly dependent, then ##\sum c_iv_i = 0## where the scalars ##c_i## are not all zero.

The ##v_i## are column vectors of A. So think how to write ##\sum c_iv_i = 0## as ##Ax = 0##, for a non-zero vector ##x##.
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\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...
Back
Top