Intersection of Planes in R^3 and Dense Subsets of R^3

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the intersection of three planes in three-dimensional space (R^3) and the mathematical implications of their intersection using linear algebra concepts. It establishes that the intersection can be analyzed through the invertibility of a matrix M formed by the coefficients of the planes. Specifically, if the matrix M is invertible, it can be reduced to Jordan form with all 1's on the diagonal, indicating that the system of equations represented by the planes has a unique solution. The argument is supported by the fact that the set of invertible 3x3 matrices has measure zero in the space of all 3x3 matrices.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear algebra concepts, particularly matrix theory.
  • Familiarity with Jordan form and its implications for matrix invertibility.
  • Knowledge of the geometric interpretation of planes in R^3.
  • Basic grasp of measure theory in the context of linear transformations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of GL(3,R) and its measure in M(3,R).
  • Learn about Jordan canonical form and its applications in linear algebra.
  • Explore the geometric interpretation of linear equations and their solutions in R^3.
  • Investigate the implications of matrix invertibility on the existence of solutions to linear systems.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of linear algebra, and anyone interested in the geometric properties of linear systems in three-dimensional space.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
13,106
Hi, All:
This is a post from another site that was interesting but was not
answered:

can I reasonably
> argue that three planes in 3-space are not likely
> to intersect at a point using the fact that
>t GL(3,R);
> the subset of invertible 3x3-matrices has measure 0
> in M(n,R); the set of all 3x3-matrices?
>
> Basically, the intersection of three planes Pi:=
>
> a_ix+b_iy+c_iz =d_i ; i=1,2,3.
>
> Is the same as having the matrix M with rows
> (a_i b_i c_i ) can be reduced to Jordan form
> with all 1's on the diagonal, and this is the
> same as M being invertible.

i.e., if M is invertible, then it can be turned into the Jordan Form as
the identity, which means that Ax=b will have a solution, with b=(d_1,d_2,d_3)
as above, i.e., the d_i are the constant terms.

Seems reasonable; wonder what others think.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sounds correct to me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K