MHB Linearly Independent: Why ${}\left\{X+Y, Y+Z, Z+W, W+X\right\}$ Isn't

Dethrone
Messages
716
Reaction score
0
Let ${}\left\{X, Y, Z, W\right\}$ be an independent set in $\Bbb{R}^n$, is the following set independent?
${}\left\{X+Y, Y+Z, Z+W, W+X\right\}$

My textbook says it isn't, but I'm not sure why. Let $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3, \lambda_4$ be scalars, then $\lambda_1(X+Y)+\lambda_2(Y+Z)+\lambda_3(Z+W)+\lambda_4(W+X)=0$. Expanding an simplifying, we get $(\lambda_1+\lambda_4)X+(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)Y+(\lambda_2+\lambda_3)Z+(\lambda_3+\lambda_4)W=0$.

Since we are given that ${}\left\{X, Y, Z, W\right\}$ is independent, then $(\lambda_1+\lambda_4)=0$, $(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)=0$, $(\lambda_2+\lambda_3)=0$, and $(\lambda_3+\lambda_4)=0$. This implies that $\lambda_1=\lambda_3=-\lambda_2=-\lambda_4=0$. Why is it not independent, then?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello again Rido12,

The set $\{X + Y, Y + Z, Z + W, W + X\}$ is dependent because $$(X + Y) - (Y + Z) + (Z + W) - (W + X) = 0.$$ This relation has nothing to do with the independence of $\{X, Y, Z, W\}$; the above identity holds for all $X, Y, Z, W \in \Bbb R^n$.
 
Hi Euge! That makes complete sense, but how come I wasn't able to distill that solution when wrote it as a linear combination? What is wrong with the reasoning?
Starting with this line:
$\lambda_1(X+Y)+\lambda_2(Y+Z)+\lambda_3(Z+W)+\lambda_4(W+X)=0$, a solution is clearly $\lambda_1=1, \lambda_2=-1, \lambda_3=1, \lambda_4=-1$, as you have pointed out.
What is wrong with rewriting that as $(\lambda_1+\lambda_4)X+(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)Y+(\lambda_2+\lambda_3)Z+(\lambda_3+\lambda_4)W=0$ and using ${}\left\{X, Y, Z, W\right\}$'s independence as a tool? Could the question be purposely trying to mislead, as that fact was clearly given as an assumption?
 
You're making mistakes in your calculations. The conditions $\lambda_1 + \lambda_4 = \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 = \lambda_2 + \lambda_3 = \lambda_3 + \lambda_4$ imply $\lambda_1 = \lambda_3$ and $\lambda_2 = \lambda_4$. Since $\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 = 0$, $\lambda_1 = -\lambda_2$. The general solution will be $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3, \lambda_4) = \lambda(1,-1,1,-1)$, $\lambda \in \Bbb R$.
 
A set of vectors $\{\textbf{W}, \textbf{X}, \textbf{Y}, \textbf{Z}\}$ are $\textbf{Linearly Independent}$ if there exists scalars $a,b,c,d$ such that $a\textbf{W} + b\textbf{X} + c\textbf{Y} + d\textbf{Z} = \textbf{0}, a = b = c = d = \textbf{0}$.

A set of vectors $\{\textbf{W}, \textbf{X}, \textbf{Y}, \textbf{Z}\}$ are $\textbf{Linearly Dependent}$ if there exists scalars $a,b,c,d$ such that $a\textbf{W} + b\textbf{X} + c\textbf{Y} + d\textbf{Z} = \textbf{0}$ and $a - d$ are not all $\textbf{0}$.

Let $W = \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}, X = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}, Y = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}, Z = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}$

Then

$X + Y = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}
\\Y + Z = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}
\\Z + W = \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}
\\W + X = \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}$

And
$\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix} - \left(\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}\right)
= \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} - \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} = \textbf{0}$

Therefore:
$(Z + W) + (X + Y) - ((Y + Z) + (W + Z)) = \textbf{0}$
and $(a, b, c, d) = (1, 1, -1, -1)$

Conclusion:
The set $\{X + Y, Y + Z, W + Z, Z + W\}$ is not linearly independent.
 
Thanks Euge and bwpbruce for the help!It turns out that I actually had the answer from the beginning when I stated $\lambda_1=\lambda_3=-\lambda_2=-\lambda_4$ in the first post, as it not only implies that $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda_3=\lambda_4=0$, but $\lambda_1=\lambda_3=1$ and $\lambda_2=\lambda_4=-1$ and vice-versa, which does satisfy the equation. Needless to say I probably stayed up too late that night.
 
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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top