Proof involving two linear equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the uniqueness of solutions for a system of two linear equations in two variables, given the condition that the determinant of the coefficient matrix is non-zero. Participants explore the implications of their algebraic manipulations and the assumptions made during the proof process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an attempt at a proof, leading to the conclusion that ##ad = bc##, which contradicts the initial condition ##ad - bc \neq 0##.
  • Another participant questions the assumptions made in the proof, particularly regarding the conditions under which certain algebraic steps are valid.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of the determinant being zero and its relation to the uniqueness of solutions.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of proving that the pairs of solutions are equal, with some arguing that it is not automatically obvious.
  • Several participants highlight the importance of ensuring that denominators in equations are not zero, which could lead to invalid conclusions.
  • One participant suggests that the equations can be represented in matrix form, which could provide a clearer path to understanding the uniqueness of solutions.
  • Another participant points out that the system of equations can have either a unique solution, no solution, or infinitely many solutions, depending on the relationships between the coefficients.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proof and the assumptions made. There is no consensus on whether the proof is complete or if additional clarification is needed regarding the conditions under which the equations are valid.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of specifying conditions such as ##b \neq 0## and ##d \neq 0##, which were not explicitly stated in the hypothesis. The discussion also reveals a lack of clarity regarding the implications of the determinant being zero and its relationship to the nature of the solutions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students learning about linear algebra, particularly those interested in understanding the conditions for the uniqueness of solutions in systems of linear equations.

RM86Z
Messages
23
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
Given ## a,b,c,d,e,f \in \mathbb {R}, ad - bc \neq 0 ##, if ##(x_1,y_1)## and ##(x_2,y_2)## are pairs of real numbers satisfying:

## ax_1 + by_1 = e, cx_1 + dy_1 =f ##
## ax_2 + by_2 = e, cx_2 + dy_2 = f ##

then ## (x_1,y_1) = (x_2,y_2). ##
Given ## a,b,c,d,e,f \in \mathbb {R}, ad - bc \neq 0 ##, if ##(x_1,y_1)## and ##(x_2,y_2)## are pairs of real numbers satisfying:

## ax_1 + by_1 = e, cx_1 + dy_1 =f ##
## ax_2 + by_2 = e, cx_2 + dy_2 = f ##

then ## (x_1,y_1) = (x_2,y_2). ##

Here is my attempt at a proof, I have gotten stuck:
1)
## ax_1 + by_1 = ax_2 + by_2 ##
## cx_1 + dy_1 = cx_2 + dy_2 ##

2)
## a(x_1 - x_2) = b(y_2 - y_1) ##
## c(x_1 - x_2) = d(y_2 - y_1) ##

3)
## \frac{a}{b} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##
## \frac{c}{d} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##

4)
## \frac{a}{b} = \frac{c}{d} ##

5)
## ad = bc ##

6)
## ad - bc = 0 ## but this is false as the hypothesis states that ## ad - bc \neq 0. ##

I am stuck now and am not sure how to proceed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't that essentially a proof? What assumptions did you make in order to get ##ad = bc##?

Note: have you studied matrices yet?
 
I don't think it is a proof as I need to prove that ## (x_1,y_1) ## and ## (x_2,y_2) ## are equal, or in other words ## x_1 - x_2 = 0 ## and ## y_1 - y_2 = 0. ## I cannot see how to get there from the result I have ended with?

I have done some linear algebra a long time ago but I am very rusty on everything and am just trying to learn some proofs as that's something I haven't done before. I can't remember all the details of the determinant at this stage...
 
RM86Z said:
3)
## \frac{a}{b} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##
## \frac{c}{d} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##

4)
## \frac{a}{b} = \frac{c}{d} ##
What are you assuming here?
 
Sorry I know there is a connection here I'm just not getting it at this stage. By the properties of the determinant the result ## ad - bc = 0 ## tells me that the two rows of the linear system are the same so ## a = b ## and ## c = d. ##
 
RM86Z said:
Sorry I know there is a connection here I'm just not getting it at this stage. By the properties of the determinant the result ## ad - bc = 0 ## tells me that the two rows of the linear system are the same so ## a = b ## and ## c = d. ##
When is this not valid?

RM86Z said:
3)
## \frac{a}{b} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##
## \frac{c}{d} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##
 
When ## x_1 - x_2 = 0 ## and actually now that I think about it it wasn't defined in the hypothesis that ## b,d \neq 0 ## as that certainly isn't valid either?

EDIT: I suppose the last bit about ## a,b \neq 0 ## doesn't make sense as it depends on the ordering of the algebra. In other words instead of ## \frac{a}{b} ## we could have ## \frac{b}{a} ##...
 
RM86Z said:
When ## x_1 - x_2 = 0 ## and actually now that I think about it it wasn't defined in the hypothesis that ## b,d \neq 0 ## as that certainly isn't valid either?
You tacitly assumed that ##x_1 \ne x_2## and reached a contradiction - in terms of ##ad = bc##. You've effectively proved, therefore, that ##x_1 = x_2##, as that is the only way around the contradiction.

You always need to be careful that the denominator on any expression in not zero. Technically, you should have done that in going from step 2) to step 3)

RM86Z said:
2)
## a(x_1 - x_2) = b(y_2 - y_1) ##
## c(x_1 - x_2) = d(y_2 - y_1) ##

3)
## \frac{a}{b} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##
## \frac{c}{d} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##
You should have indicated here that you were assuming that ##x_1 - x_2 \ne 0##. Otherwise, that is not valid mathematically.
 
PS In fact, it's not valid if ##b = 0## or ##d = 0## either!
 
  • #10
Ah brilliant that makes sense now thank you so much PeroK! That was a very slight detail that I wasn't seeing. I appreciate the help.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #11
Your equations can be written as
$$
\begin{bmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{bmatrix}\cdot \begin{bmatrix}x_1\\y_1\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}e\\f \end{bmatrix}\text{ and }\begin{bmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{bmatrix}\cdot \begin{bmatrix}x_2\\y_2\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}e\\f \end{bmatrix}
$$
From there you can use
$$
\begin{bmatrix}d&-b\\-c&a \end{bmatrix}\cdot\begin{bmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{bmatrix}=(ad-bc)\cdot\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}
$$
 
  • #12
RM86Z said:
Summary:: Given ## a,b,c,d,e,f \in \mathbb {R}, ad - bc \neq 0 ##, if ##(x_1,y_1)## and ##(x_2,y_2)## are pairs of real numbers satisfying:

## ax_1 + by_1 = e, cx_1 + dy_1 =f ##
## ax_2 + by_2 = e, cx_2 + dy_2 = f ##

then ## (x_1,y_1) = (x_2,y_2). ##

Given ## a,b,c,d,e,f \in \mathbb {R}, ad - bc \neq 0 ##, if ##(x_1,y_1)## and ##(x_2,y_2)## are pairs of real numbers satisfying:

## ax_1 + by_1 = e, cx_1 + dy_1 =f ##
## ax_2 + by_2 = e, cx_2 + dy_2 = f ##

then ## (x_1,y_1) = (x_2,y_2). ##

Here is my attempt at a proof, I have gotten stuck:
1)
## ax_1 + by_1 = ax_2 + by_2 ##
## cx_1 + dy_1 = cx_2 + dy_2 ##

2)
## a(x_1 - x_2) = b(y_2 - y_1) ##
## c(x_1 - x_2) = d(y_2 - y_1) ##

3)
## \frac{a}{b} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##
## \frac{c}{d} = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_1 - x_2} ##

4)
## \frac{a}{b} = \frac{c}{d} ##

5)
## ad = bc ##

6)
## ad - bc = 0 ## but this is false as the hypothesis states that ## ad - bc \neq 0. ##

I am stuck now and am not sure how to proceed.
Each ##(x_k,y_k)## pair will have a unique solution. Since all constants are the same for both, the pairs must be equal.
 
  • #13
mathman said:
Each ##(x_k,y_k)## pair will have a unique solution.
This is the statement that has to be shown. It is not automatically obvious.
mathman said:
Since all constants are the same for both, the pairs must be equal.
This is wrong. E.g. ##a=b=c=d=e=f=1.##
 
  • #14
a=a, b=b, etc. is what I meant.
I didn't think it was necessary to prove what is well known. Two linear equations in two unknowns has either a unique solution or none. Basic point: both pairs of equations use the same (a,b, etc.) they will have the same solution. The unknowns are dummies, so it doesn't matter what pair of letters are used, the answer will always be the same for a given set of knowns.
 
  • #15
mathman said:
Two linear equations in two unknowns has either a unique solution or none.
Or infinitely many.
 
  • #16
mathman said:
I didn't think it was necessary to prove what is well known.
It's not well known to someone just learning the subject!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
  • #17
RM86Z said:
Summary:: Given ## a,b,c,d,e,f \in \mathbb {R}, ad - bc \neq 0 ##, if ##(x_1,y_1)## and ##(x_2,y_2)## are pairs of real numbers satisfying:

## ax_1 + by_1 = e, cx_1 + dy_1 =f ##
## ax_2 + by_2 = e, cx_2 + dy_2 = f ##

then ## (x_1,y_1) = (x_2,y_2). ##

Given ## a,b,c,d,e,f \in \mathbb {R}, ad - bc \neq 0 ##, if ##(x_1,y_1)## and ##(x_2,y_2)## are pairs of real numbers satisfying:

## ax_1 + by_1 = e, cx_1 + dy_1 =f ##
## ax_2 + by_2 = e, cx_2 + dy_2 = f ##

then ## (x_1,y_1) = (x_2,y_2). ##

You can consider ## ax + by = e## as the equation for a straight and ##cx + dy =f ## as the equation of a second straight. Both straights are in the ##(x,y)## coordinate plane. Now, either those two lines are a) equal, b) parallel, or c) intersect in one point.

##ad-bc\neq 0## rules out the first two cases, but this needs some considerations to see.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: docnet and Office_Shredder
  • #18
fresh_42 said:
You can consider ## ax + by = e## as the equation for a straight and ##cx + dy =f ## as the equation of a second straight. Both straights are in the ##(x,y)## coordinate plane. Now, either those two lines are a) equal, b) parallel, or c) intersect in one point.

##ad-bc\neq 0## rules out the first two cases, but this needs some considerations to see.

Somehow I've never thought of it this way. Genius.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K