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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Minhtran1092
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the linear independence of the column vectors of an invertible matrix A, specifically focusing on the implications of the matrix's rank and its relationship to linear dependence. Participants explore various approaches and definitions related to linear independence, matrix rank, and the reduced row echelon form (rref).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using the fact that the rank of an invertible matrix A is n to argue that the column vectors v1,...,vn must be linearly independent.
  • Others point out that if the vectors were linearly dependent, the determinant of A would be zero, indicating that A is not invertible.
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of pivots and rref, with some participants expressing uncertainty about these concepts.
  • One participant mentions that a linear combination of dependent vectors would equal zero, which is a definition of linear dependence.
  • Another participant encourages thinking about how to express the linear combination of vectors as a matrix equation Ax = 0 for a non-zero vector x.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions of linear independence and dependence, but there is no consensus on the specific steps or methods to prove the independence of the vectors in this context. Multiple competing views and approaches remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion regarding the terms "pivot" and "rref," indicating a potential gap in understanding the necessary mathematical concepts for the proof.

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##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K