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

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

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a matrix equation Ax = 0, where A is an mxn matrix. The original poster is tasked with showing that if this equation has only one solution, specifically x = 0, then it must follow that m is greater than or equal to n.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster considers using induction but is unsure how to begin. Some participants reference the dimension theorem for matrices and question the implications of nullity and rank in relation to the dimensions of the matrix.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different approaches to the problem, with some providing theoretical insights while others express a need for clarification on the concepts involved. There is an ongoing exchange of ideas, but no consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the original poster's unfamiliarity with certain mathematical theorems, which may impact their understanding of the problem. Additionally, the discussion includes suggestions to consider simpler cases to build intuition.

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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · 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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
4K