Linear algebra, can A be one-to-one given a case

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of an nxn matrix A in the context of linear transformations, specifically whether A can be one-to-one given that there exists a vector b such that the equation Ax=b has no solutions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of having no solutions for Ax=b, questioning how this relates to the one-to-one nature of the transformation. There is an attempt to connect the concepts of pivots, spanning, and linear independence to the problem at hand.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and hints regarding the relationship between being one-to-one and onto. Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of missing pivots and the structure of the augmented matrix.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a basic theorem in linear algebra regarding the conditions under which Ax=b has unique, no, or infinitely many solutions, which may influence the understanding of the problem.

CookieSalesman
Messages
103
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Given an nxn matrix, if a b exists so Ax=b has no solutions, can A be one-to-one?

Homework Equations


I understand that as a linear transformation, you need things such as (to be one-to-one as a linear trans)
1. n pivots
2. Only the trivial solution exists to Ax=0

Ax=b having no solutions is a bit of an oddball for me.

The Attempt at a Solution


If I set up an augmented matrix such as [I | b] (Identity matrix | some vector b)
By removing one pivot from the Ident. matrix I can see that I've created an Ax=b where b has no solution. This is akin to a linearly independent set (which contains the zero vector). in Rn space.
It technically doesn't span Rn space nor Rm space fully... I think? As it will have a row of zeroes and a column of zeroes.
But does this truly affect its ability to be one-to-one?
I don't see how it does...

For instance, let's say you have a 3x3 ID matrix A, but one pivot is missing.
If that's put into an augmented matrix[A|b], if a row with zeroes has a number to the right of it, it means there's no solution for this b. So doesn't this mean the situation is just n/a?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CookieSalesman said:

Homework Statement


Given an nxn matrix, if a b exists so Ax=b has no solutions, can A be one-to-one?
<snip>

Hint: If Ax = b has no solution then the transformation is not onto. So the question could be rephrased as "Can a linear transformation that is 1-1 be not onto? Does that help? Think about ##R^2## and ##R^3##.

[Edit]: Never mind, I missed the nxn.
 
Last edited:
CookieSalesman said:

Homework Statement


Given an nxn matrix, if a b exists so Ax=b has no solutions, can A be one-to-one?

Homework Equations


I understand that as a linear transformation, you need things such as (to be one-to-one as a linear trans)
1. n pivots
2. Only the trivial solution exists to Ax=0

Ax=b having no solutions is a bit of an oddball for me.

The Attempt at a Solution


If I set up an augmented matrix such as [I | b] (Identity matrix | some vector b)
By removing one pivot from the Ident. matrix I can see that I've created an Ax=b where b has no solution. This is akin to a linearly independent set (which contains the zero vector). in Rn space.
It technically doesn't span Rn space nor Rm space fully... I think? As it will have a row of zeroes and a column of zeroes.
But does this truly affect its ability to be one-to-one?
I don't see how it does...

For instance, let's say you have a 3x3 ID matrix A, but one pivot is missing.
If that's put into an augmented matrix[A|b], if a row with zeroes has a number to the right of it, it means there's no solution for this b. So doesn't this mean the situation is just n/a?

There is a very basic theorem in linear algebra: if A is nxn (which you say yours is), then either (1) the equation Ax = b has a unique solution for any n-vector b on the right; or (2) Ax = b has either no solution (for some b) or infinitely many solutions (for some other b).

Case (1) is the same as saying: Ax = 0 if and only if x = 0.
 
Thanks everyone. I think that helped.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K