MHB Linear Combination - missing data ?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the value of k in the expression ku - 3v, given that u and v are solutions to the non-homogeneous system Ax = b. It is established that A(ku - 3v) must equal b, leading to the equation (k - 3)b = b. Since b is non-zero, this simplifies to k - 3 = 1, resulting in k = 4. The conclusion confirms that k cannot be 3, as it would contradict the requirement for the solution. The correct value of k is thus determined to be 4.
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I am trying to solve a question, and I think that something is missing.

It is given that the vectors u and v are solutions to the non-homogeneous system of equations Ax=b.

If the vector ku-3v is a solution to the same system, then:

a) k = 4
b) k = 3
c) k = 0

The correct solution is apparently k = 4. How can you tell ?? I can't figure it out.

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yankel said:
Dear all,

I am trying to solve a question, and I think that something is missing.

It is given that the vectors u and v are solutions to the non-homogeneous system of equations Ax=b.

If the vector ku-3v is a solution to the same system, then:

a) k = 4
b) k = 3
c) k = 0

The correct solution is apparently k = 4. How can you tell ?? I can't figure it out.

Thank you in advance.

Hi Yankel,

You have:
$$
A(ku-3v) = kAu - 3Av = (k-3)b
$$
On the other hand, as $ku-3v$ is also a solution of the system, you have:
$$
A(ku-3v) = b
$$
Since $b\ne0$ by hypothesis, the conclusion follows.
 
So are you saying that k can't be 3 ?
 
Yankel said:
So are you saying that k can't be 3 ?
You must have $(k-3)b = b$; since $b\ne0$, this implies $k-3 = 1$ and $k=4$. This is the solution you mentioned as correct.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
980
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K