MHB Is there a more efficient way to determine the basis of a subspace?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Subspace
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

We are given the vectors $\vec{a}=\begin{pmatrix}4\\ 1 \\ 0\end{pmatrix}, \vec{b}=\begin{pmatrix}2\\ 0 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}, \vec{c}=\begin{pmatrix}0\\ -2 \\ 4\end{pmatrix}$.

I have shown by calculating the deteminant $|D|=0$ that these three vectors are linearly dependent.

I want to give a basis of the subspace of $\mathbb{R}^3$ that is spanned by these three vectors.

To find the basis of the subspace $\text{ span }\{\vec{a}, \vec{b}, \vec{c}\}$ we have to find a minimal subset $V$ of $\{\vec{a}, \vec{b}, \vec{c}\}$ with $\text{ span }V=\text{ span } \{\vec{a}, \vec{b}, \vec{c}\}$.

We have to use the Gauss algorithm to find the linearly independent subset, right?

$\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
4 & 2 & 0\\
1 & 0 & -2\\
0 & 1 & 4
\end{matrix}\left|\begin{matrix}
0\\
0\\
0
\end{matrix}\right.\end{bmatrix}\begin{matrix}
\\
2.\text{row} \leftrightarrow 3.\text{row}\\

\end{matrix} \longrightarrow \begin{bmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
4 & 2 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 4\\
1 & 0 & -2
\end{matrix}\left|\begin{matrix}
0\\
0\\
0
\end{matrix}\right.\end{bmatrix}\begin{matrix}
\\
\\
4\cdot 3.\text{row}-1.\text{row}
\end{matrix} \longrightarrow \begin{bmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
4 & 2 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 4\\
0 & -2 & -8
\end{matrix}\left|\begin{matrix}
0\\
0\\
0
\end{matrix}\right.\end{bmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
\\
\\
-\frac{1}{2}\cdot 3.\text{row}- 2.\text{row}
\end{matrix} \longrightarrow \begin{bmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
4 & 2 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 4\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{matrix}\left|\begin{matrix}
0\\
0\\
0
\end{matrix}\right.\end{bmatrix}$

So, we get $4\lambda_1+\lambda_2=0, \lambda_2+4\lambda_3=0$, and so $\lambda_1=2\lambda_3, \lambda_2=-4\lambda_3$.

Therefore, $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3)=\lambda_3 (2,-4,1), \lambda_3\in \mathbb{R}$.

For $\lambda_3=1$ we get the coefficients $(2,-4,1)$. That means that $2\vec{a}-4\vec{b}+\vec{c}=0 \Rightarrow \vec{c}=-2\vec{a}+4\vec{b}$.

Do we have to check if the vectors $\vec{a}, \vec{b}$ are linearly independent? Or can we just conclude from here that the basis that we are looking for is $\{\vec{a}, \vec{b}\}$ ? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Personally, I don't like to immediately go to matrices and determinants for a problem like this. To determine whether or not these three vectors are independent, I would use the definition of independent- suppose there exist 3 numbers, a, b, and c, such that [math]a\begin{bmatrix}4 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}+ b\begin{bmatrix} 2 \\ 0 \\ 1\end{bmatrix}+ c\begin{bmatrix}0 \\ -2\\ 4\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}[/math]- must a= b= c= 0?

That is the same as the three equations 4a+ 2b=0, a-2c= 0, and b+ 4c= 0. From the first equation b= -2a. From the second equation a= 2c so b= -2(2c)= -4c. But the third equation also give b= -4c. These vectors are dependent.

So the sub space they span is not three dimensional, it is either one or two dimensional. If it is one dimensional then any one vector of the given three will span it. If it is two dimensional, then any two will span it.

Try the first two vectors, [math]\begin{bmatrix}4 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}[/math] and [math]\begin{bmatrix} 2 \\ 0 \\ 1\end{bmatrix}[/math]. Clearly they are independent because one is not a multiple of the other. Therefore this subspace is two dimensional and these two vectors span it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
Personally, I don't like to immediately go to matrices and determinants for a problem like this. To determine whether or not these three vectors are independent, I would use the definition of independent- suppose there exist 3 numbers, a, b, and c, such that [math]a\begin{bmatrix}4 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}+ b\begin{bmatrix} 2 \\ 0 \\ 1\end{bmatrix}+ c\begin{bmatrix}0 \\ -2\\ 4\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}[/math]- must a= b= c= 0?

That is the same as the three equations 4a+ 2b=0, a-2c= 0, and b+ 4c= 0. From the first equation b= -2a. From the second equation a= 2c so b= -2(2c)= -4c. But the third equation also give b= -4c. These equations are dependent.

So the sub space they span is not three dimensional, it is either one or two dimensional. If it is one dimensional then any one vector of the given three will span it. If it is two dimensional, then any two will span it.

Try the first two vectors, [math]\begin{bmatrix}4 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}[/math] and [math]\begin{bmatrix} 2 \\ 0 \\ 1\end{bmatrix}[/math]. Clearly they are independent because one is not a multiple of the other. Therefore this subspace is two dimensional and these two vectors span it.

I understand!

But my way would also be correct, or not? (Wondering)
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Back
Top