Undergrad Linear independence of functions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the linear independence of the function sets {x, e^x} and {ex, e^x}. It is established that both sets have only the trivial solution when represented as a linear combination equal to zero, indicating they are linearly independent. The confusion arises from the interpretation of the definition, particularly regarding the "for all x in I" clause. It is clarified that while specific values may yield a linear combination equating to zero, this does not violate linear independence as the trivial solution must hold for all x in the interval. Ultimately, the key point is that intersection of functions does not determine their linear independence; rather, it is the uniformity of the trivial solution across the entire interval that matters.
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
Is there a difference between the linear independence of ##\{x,e^x\}## and ##\{ex,e^x\}##? It can be shown that both only have the trivial solution when represented as a linear combination equal to zero. However, the definition of linear independence is: "Two functions are linearly independent on the interval ##I## if there exists only the trivial solution to ##c_1f_1 + c_2f_2 + ... + c_nf_n = 0## for all x in ##I##. In the first case, this is obvious since x and e^x never intersect, and so cannot be multiples of each other. However, doesn't the latter case violate this definition since ##e(1)## is a multiple of ##e^1##? I am just confused about the "for all x on I" statement at the end of the definition.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
In the first case, this is obvious since x and e^x never intersect, and so cannot be multiples of each other.
Intersection or non-intersection is irrelevant. The graphs of ##f_1(x) = x^2+1 ## and ##f_2(x) = 2x^2+2## don't intersect, but ## (-2) f_1(x) + (1)f_2(x) = 0 ## at each value of ##x##.

However, doesn't the latter case violate this definition since ##e(1)## is a multiple of ##e^1##?
No. At x = 1, we have ##c_1 (ex) + c_2(e^x) = 0## for ##c_1 = 1## and ##c_2= -1##, but those values ##c_1, c_2## are not solutions that apply to each value of ##x## in some interval. They only work at one particular value of ##x##.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
For linear independence, a multiplication with elements of your field does not matter at all: x and e*x are equivalent. You multiply them with an arbitrary constant ci anyway.
Mr Davis 97 said:
In the first case, this is obvious since x and e^x never intersect, and so cannot be multiples of each other.
I don't understand that argument. In fact, if two functions intersect (but are not identical), they cannot be multiples of each other. If they never intersect, they can (don't have to) be multiples of each other.
 
it does not violate the definition because
(-1)e x+(1)e^x=0 if x=1 but not for all x
that is confusing because the "for all x" applies to
##c_1f_1 + c_2f_2 + ... + c_nf_n = 0##
not
there exists only the trivial solution
 
Mr Davis 97 said:
"Two functions are linearly independent on the interval II if there exists only the trivial solution to c1f1+c2f2+...+cnfn=0c_1f_1 + c_2f_2 + ... + c_nf_n = 0 for all x in II.

you said correctly at the end '' for every ##x \in I## '' this must happen uniformly in ##I## ...
 
  • Like
Likes Mr Davis 97

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
997
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
384
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K