MHB Parametrization of a Reduced Matrix

Jundoe
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I'm facing some doubts regarding the parametrization of a given matrix.

Let's say, the following matrix is reduced.

From:
$\begin{bmatrix}0 & 2 & -8\\0 & 2 & 0\\0 & 0 & 2\end{bmatrix}$

To:
$\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 & 0\\0 & 0 & 1\\0 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}$

To Parametrize that I would do the following:

x2=0, x3=0

$\begin{bmatrix}x1\\x2\\x3\end{bmatrix}$= $\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\\1\end{bmatrix}$

But that doesn't seem right. For some reason when the matrix is bigger with more integers I can do it simply with chosen variables r, s, t... But with only zeroes like this I get super confused.

I would usually proceed with assigned variables, which may yield:

$\begin{bmatrix}x1\\x2\\x3\end{bmatrix}$= r $\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\\0\end{bmatrix}$ + s $\begin{bmatrix}0\\0\\1\end{bmatrix}$

But even this feels odd, seeing as I'm assigning a variable to a pivot.

Can someone please clarify this for me.
Thank You.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jundoe said:
I'm facing some doubts regarding the parametrization of a given matrix.

Let's say, the following matrix is reduced.

From:
$\begin{bmatrix}0 & 2 & -8\\0 & 2 & 0\\0 & 0 & 2\end{bmatrix}$

To:
$\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 & 0\\0 & 0 & 1\\0 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}$

To Parametrize that I would do the following:

x2=0, x3=0

$\begin{bmatrix}x1\\x2\\x3\end{bmatrix}$= $\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\\1\end{bmatrix}$

But that doesn't seem right. For some reason when the matrix is bigger with more integers I can do it simply with chosen variables r, s, t... But with only zeroes like this I get super confused.

I would usually proceed with assigned variables, which may yield:

$\begin{bmatrix}x1\\x2\\x3\end{bmatrix}$= r $\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\\0\end{bmatrix}$ + s $\begin{bmatrix}0\\0\\1\end{bmatrix}$

But even this feels odd, seeing as I'm assigning a variable to a pivot.

Can someone please clarify this for me.
Thank You.

Welcome to MHB, Jundoe! :)

I think you are trying to solve $x1$, $x2$, and $x3$ from:
$$\begin{bmatrix}0 & 2 & -8\\0 & 2 & 0\\0 & 0 & 2\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}x1\\x2\\x3\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{bmatrix}$$
Let me know if I am misunderstanding.

Row reduction turns this into:
$$\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 & 0\\0 & 0 & 1\\0 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}x1\\x2\\x3\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{bmatrix}$$
You correctly deduced that $x2=0$ and $x3=0$.

However, after that you seem to give them a non-zero value, which can't be right.
What you do have, is that $x1$ has an unspecified value. Let's call it $r$. So $x1 = r$.
Then your solution should be:
$$\begin{bmatrix}x1\\x2\\x3\end{bmatrix}= r \begin{bmatrix}1\\0\\0\end{bmatrix}$$
 
I like Serena said:
However, after that you seem to give them a non-zero value, which can't be right.
What you do have, is that $x1$ has an unspecified value. Let's call it $r$. So $x1 = r$.
Then your solution should be:
$$\begin{bmatrix}x1\\x2\\x3\end{bmatrix}= r \begin{bmatrix}1\\0\\0\end{bmatrix}$$

Much clearer, thank you. I was aware of assigning free variables yet, for some odd reason, thought the zeroes were pretty much obsolete, and would ignore them instead of assigning them a variable.
 
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...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top