Linearly dependent numbers over the rationals

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyryk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linearly Numbers
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of linear dependence among positive real numbers over the rationals and the quest for algorithms to determine coefficients that demonstrate this dependence. Participants clarify that if the numbers are linearly dependent, there exist rational coefficients, not all zero, that satisfy the equation. The conversation also explores the possibility of extending the method used for two numbers, which involves subtraction to check for rational ratios, to more than two numbers. While the Gauss elimination algorithm is mentioned as a tool for finite dimensional spaces, the need for a similar approach for multiple numbers remains a key inquiry. The thread emphasizes the importance of finding effective algorithms for both checking linear dependence and calculating the coefficients.
kyryk
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,
Assume that the real positive numbers x_1,x_2,...,x_n are linearly dependent over the rational numbers, i.e. there are q_1,...,q_n in Q such that x_1*q_1+...+x_n*q_n=0. Is there an algorithm to calculate the coefficients q_i? Is there an algorithm to even check if the x_i's are linearly dependent over Q? In a finite dimensional space, we have the Gauss elimination algorithm, is there something similar?

For example, if we only have two numbers x and y, both >0, then we can start subtracting the smaller one from the larger one. This process terminates until one of them is zero, and that happens in a finite amount of steps if and only if their ratio is a rational number.
Is there anything similar to this for more than two numbers?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
kyryk said:
Hi,
Assume that the real positive numbers x_1,x_2,...,x_n are linearly dependent over the rational numbers, i.e. there are q_1,...,q_n in Q such that x_1*q_1+...+x_n*q_n=0.
This is incorrect. If the numbers x1, x2, ..., xn are linearly dependent, there are numbers q1, q2, ..., qn, not all of which are zero[/color], for which x1q1 + x2q2 + ... + xnqn = 0.
kyryk said:
Is there an algorithm to calculate the coefficients q_i? Is there an algorithm to even check if the x_i's are linearly dependent over Q? In a finite dimensional space, we have the Gauss elimination algorithm, is there something similar?

For example, if we only have two numbers x and y, both >0, then we can start subtracting the smaller one from the larger one. This process terminates until one of them is zero, and that happens in a finite amount of steps if and only if their ratio is a rational number.
Is there anything similar to this for more than two numbers?
 
Sure, it is part of the definition of linearly dependent, thanks for clarifying it though.

However, I still need an answer/suggestions to my actual question.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top