Is it worth fighting this? (null and row spaces)

  • Thread starter Thread starter jumbogala
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Row
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the null space and the row space of a matrix, specifically addressing the claim that null(A) equals the orthogonal complement of row(A). The original poster expresses concern over receiving no credit for their assignment related to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the dimensions of the null space and row space, questioning the validity of the original poster's reasoning and the application of relevant theorems.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the misunderstanding regarding the relationship between dimensions and subspaces, emphasizing that equal dimensions do not imply equality of the subspaces themselves. There is an ongoing exploration of the correct approach to the problem.

Contextual Notes

The original poster is considering whether to approach their professor regarding the grading of their assignment, which has implications for their final grade. There is a noted uncertainty about the application of theorems related to subspaces and their dimensions.

jumbogala
Messages
414
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


If A is an m x n matrix, show that null(A) = [row(A)]_|_ (meaning rowA perp).

I handed in an assignment with this question on it, and got zero points. I think what I did is mostly right, but I want someone to make sure I'm not out to lunch before I go to my prof.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


The dim[null(A)] = n -r
dim [row(A)] = r

So combining the above equations, we get dim[null(A)] + dim[row(A)] = n

Both null(A) and row(A) are subspaces of Rn. So I can use the theorem that dim(U) + dim(U perp) = n.

Then I wrote that by the above condition, null(A) = (rowA) perp.

And I got zero points out of eight. I think I should have included this line:
U = null(A)
U perp = row(A).

But (rowA) perp = U perp perp = U = null(A), which proves it. In the previous question in the assignment I proved that U perp perp = U, so I don't need to show it again.

This is worth 20 % of my final grade - do you think I should approach my prof about this? My TA was the one who marked it, but she told me what I was doing was wrong. So I'm not sure... thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your mistake is in assuming that because the dimensions of null(A) and row(A) perp are the same, the two subspaces are the same. That's like saying because both the xz and xy planes are two-dimensional, they are the same subspace of R3.

Unfortunately, your mistake likely caused you to completely miss the meat of the real argument, which is why the TA didn't give you any credit.
 
I'm confused... when did I assume that the dimensions of null(A) and [row(A)]perp were the same? All I did was apply the theorem "Let U be a fixed subspace of R^n. Then dim(U) + dim(U perp) = n.

It's definitely true that dim(nullA) + dim(rowA) = n, right? And nullA, rowA are both supspaces of R^n. So why doesn't the above theorem apply?

Your reasoning with the xz and xy planes makes total sense, I just can't see how to apply it here.
 
The theorem you used gives you:

If U=null(A), then dim(null(A))+dim(null(A) perp)=n.
If U=row(A), then dim(row(A))+dim(row(A) perp)=n.

It doesn't tell you anything about the subspaces except their dimension. At best, you can conclude that dim(null(A))=dim(row(A) perp). I assumed you had reached this conclusion about the dimensions and then made the leap to the subspaces being equal. If you didn't, it's completely unclear how you went from applying the theorem to saying the two subspaces are the same.
 
Last edited:
I didn't reach that conclusion... I think I must have applied the theorem incorrectly. I'm not getting what you're saying :(

My reasoning was that if you have dim(A) + dim(B) = n, and A, B are both supspaces of R^n, then B = A perp.

Is it because you can't go backwards? The theorem says that dim(U) + dim(U perp) = n, but maybe you can only use it if you already know that the thing in the second dim( ) is perp. Maybe you can't just know that it's equal to n...
 
Yeah I think I got it. You can't say that just because dim(nullA) + dim(rowA) = n that row(A) is necessarily nullA perp.

The best you can say is that dim(nullA) + dim(rowA) = dim(nullA) + dim(nullA perp).

Then you would get dim(rowA) = dim(nullA perp), but the spaces aren't necessarily equal just because their dimensions are equal.

What's a better way to do this problem, then?
 
Yeah, you got it. I don't actually know what a correct proof is offhand. It's easier to see where an argument is wrong than to come up with the correct one. Perhaps one of the math experts will chime in with a suggestion.
 
That's okay! Thanks for your help and patience :)
 
how about this as a start framework...

say nxn matrix A has non-zero row vectors a_i \in \mathbb{R}^n.

multiplying A.a_i shows cleary the ith component of the product will be |a_i|^2, so none of the row vectors are in the null space.

now consider the subspace R \subset \mathbb{R}^n spanned by the row vectors

assuming it exists, take a non-zero vector p \in R^{\perp}, and have a look at the product A.p
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
8K