If Ax = 0 has one solution, show m>=n

  • Thread starter Thread starter WY
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if the equation Ax = 0 has only one solution (x = 0), then the number of rows (m) in matrix A must be greater than or equal to the number of columns (n). The Dimension Theorem for Matrices is referenced, which states that for an mxn matrix, the relationship rank(A) + nullity(A) = n holds true. Since the nullity (dimKer(A)) is zero in this case, it follows that the rank must equal n, leading to the conclusion that m must be at least n.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear algebra concepts such as matrices and vectors
  • Familiarity with the Dimension Theorem for Matrices
  • Basic knowledge of rank and nullity of matrices
  • Ability to manipulate and solve linear equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Dimension Theorem for Matrices in detail
  • Learn about the concepts of rank and nullity in linear algebra
  • Explore examples of mxn matrices and their solutions
  • Practice solving linear equations with varying numbers of unknowns and equations
USEFUL FOR

Students of linear algebra, educators teaching matrix theory, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of linear equations and matrix dimensions.

WY
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hey

I'm not to sure on how to approach this problem - I think I have to use induction but I don't know where to start!
Question: Let A be an mxn matric. Suppose that Ax=0 has only one solution, namely x=0.
Show that m >= n


Thanks for the help in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dimension theorem for Matrices says if matrix has n columns => rank(A)+nullity(A)=n
In your case nullity(A)=dimKer(A)=0
Is it possible rank(A) to be > min(m,n)?
 
Thanks for replying :)
But I'm not to sure what you mean - i don't think i am very familiar with that theorem... could you elaborate a little? hehehe
 
WY said:
Thanks for replying :)
But I'm not to sure what you mean - i don't think i am very familiar with that theorem... could you elaborate a little? hehehe

If you are unfamiliar with those formal properties and want to approach the problem from the basics, you could start by writing simple cases

<br /> \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> a &amp; b \\<br /> \end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {x_1 } \\<br /> {x_2 } \\<br /> \end{array}} \right] = 0<br />


<br /> \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> a &amp; b &amp; c \\<br /> \end{array}} \\<br /> {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> d &amp; e &amp; f \\<br /> \end{array}} \\<br /> \end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {x_1 } \\<br /> {x_2 } \\<br /> {x_3 } \\<br /> \end{array}} \right] = 0<br />

It's pretty easy to show that these equations can be satisfied with non-zero x vectors. From a linear equations perspective, it is matter of having too many unkowns and not enough equations.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
4K