Proof of elementary row matrix operation.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of how to interchange two rows of a matrix using a finite sequence of elementary row operations. Participants explore the validity of proposed sequences of operations and the clarity of their representations, focusing on the types of operations allowed and the correctness of the steps involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a sequence of operations to interchange two rows, questioning its correctness.
  • Another participant suggests rewriting the proof to clarify the updates of the rows at each step, indicating that the original sequence does not achieve the desired result.
  • A third participant expresses appreciation for the theoretical insight but notes the impracticality of the proposed steps.
  • Subsequent posts provide revised sequences of operations, with some participants questioning the validity of specific steps, particularly regarding the use of linear combinations of rows.
  • Some participants argue that if certain operations are allowed, the interchange can be accomplished in fewer steps.
  • There is a discussion about the clarity of notation and the representation of row updates, with suggestions for improving the presentation of the operations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the original proof or the validity of specific steps. Multiple competing views regarding the allowed operations and the clarity of the proof remain evident throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of the allowed operations and the implications of using linear combinations of rows. The discussion highlights the need for clear communication of mathematical steps and assumptions.

Buffu
Messages
851
Reaction score
147
Prove that interchange of two rows of a matrix can be accomplished by a finite sequence of elemenatary row operations of the other two types.

My proof :-

If ##A_k## is to be interchanged by ##A_l## then,

##\displaystyle \begin{align} A_k &\to A_l + A_k \\ A_l &\to - A_l \\ A_l &\to A_k + A_l \\ A_l &\to A_l + A_k \\ A_l &\to \dfrac12 A_l \\ A_k &\to - A_k \\ A_k &\to A_k + A_l \\ A_k &\to - A_k \end{align}##

I think this now interchanges original ##A_l## with ##A_k##.
Is this correct ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let ##K## and ##L## denote the original rows ##A_k,A_l##. Then we want to stepwise change ##A_k## and ##A_l## so that we end up with ##A_k=L,\ A_l=K##.

I suggest you re-write your proof, showing in each line the updated values of ##A_k## and ##A_l##, in terms of ##K## and ##L##. For instance line 1 would read:
$$
A_k\to A_l+A_k;\quad\quad A_k=L+K;\ A_l=L\quad\quad\quad(1)
$$

On my calculation, your sequence does not end up with the desired result.

However, given your first three steps, the desired result can be reached by three carefully chosen subsequent steps. I think if you write it out the way I suggest, those steps will not be hard to find.
 
Last edited:
hey! that's really cool! I never knew that. of course it is quite useles in practice since it took me 6 steps to accomplish one. but nice to know in theory. since the OP's steps did reveal how to do it, I presume his "error" is possibly a matter of miscommunication. Even if not, his steps, repeated, do work as pointed out subsequently by andrew.
 
##\displaystyle \begin{align} A_k &\to A_l + A_k \qquad &K &= L + K
\\ A_l &\to - A_l \qquad &L &= -L
\\ A_l &\to A_k + A_l \qquad &L &= L + K - L = K
\\ A_k &\to -A_l + A_k \qquad &K &= K+ L - K = L
\end{align}##

Now ?
 
Buffu said:
##\displaystyle \begin{align} A_k &\to A_l + A_k \qquad &K &= L + K
\\ A_l &\to - A_l \qquad &L &= -L
\\ A_l &\to A_k + A_l \qquad &L &= L + K - L = K
\\ A_k &\to -A_l + A_k \qquad &K &= K+ L - K = L
\end{align}##

Now ?
Writing things like ##K=L+K## doesn't make sense. Have another look at what I wrote in post 2. Think of ##A_l## and ##A_k## as the variable values of the rows, which get updated at each step, and write things like ##A_k=L+K;\ A_l=L##, on each line, which tells us the current values of both ##A_l## and ##A_k##, in terms of the constants ##K## and ##L##.
 
##\displaystyle \begin{align} A_k &\to A_l + A_k \qquad &A_k &= L + K
\\ A_l &\to - A_l \qquad &A_l &= -L
\\ A_l &\to A_k + A_l \qquad &A_l &= L + K - L = K
\\ A_k &\to -A_l + A_k \qquad &A_k &= K+ L - K = L
\end{align}##

Sorry I did not understand completely what you were saying.
 
Is that 4th step allowed: ##A_k\to -A_l+A_k##?

It seems implied by your OP that the 'other two types' of allowed operations to change a row are
(1) add another row to it; or
(2) multiply it by a scalar
That does not allow setting a row equal to a linear combination of rows, which is what your 4th step does. If that is allowed, then the whole thing can be done in three steps.

Nevertheless, if operations like your 4th step are included in 'the other two types', your solution is valid.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buffu
andrewkirk said:
Is that 4th step allowed: ##A_k\to -A_l+A_k##?

It seems implied by your OP that the 'other two types' of allowed operations to change a row are
(1) add another row to it; or
(2) multiply it by a scalar
That does not allow setting a row equal to a linear combination of rows, which is what your 4th step does. If that is allowed, then the whole thing can be done in three steps.

Nevertheless, if operations like your 4th step are included in 'the other two types', your solution is valid.

Sorry I did that unconsciously. It would require two more steps.
 
Buffu said:
Sorry I did that unconsciously. It would require two more steps.

In a problem such as this, for your own and everyone else's benefit, I would do it like this:

##A_k = K; A_l = L##
##A_k = K + L; A_l = L## (add ##A_l## to ##A_k##)
##A_k = K + L; A_l = 2L## (multiply ##A_l## by ##2##)

Etc. Then all is clear
 
  • #10
here are my 6 steps, imitating those of the OP, in which the first, 3rd and 5th are adding a row to another, and the 2nd, 4th and 6th are multiplying a row by a scalar: ( the rows are written side by side)

[ A : B] --> [A+B : B] --> [A+B : -B] --> [A+B : A] --> [A+B : -A] --> [B : -A] --> [B : A].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buffu

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K