Prove equivalence of elementary operations in Gauss Algorithm

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that replacing an equation in a system of linear equations with a non-zero multiple of itself does not alter the system's solution. The proof begins with a system S of n equations and n unknowns, assuming the other elementary operations do not affect the solution. The participants clarify that the assumption of a unique solution is unnecessary, and emphasize the importance of using mathematical notation for clarity. They suggest expressing the equations in a standard form to enhance the proof's rigor.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear algebra concepts, specifically systems of linear equations.
  • Familiarity with elementary row operations in matrix theory.
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical notation and proof techniques.
  • Experience with Gauss elimination and its implications on solution sets.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of elementary row operations in linear algebra.
  • Learn how to express systems of equations in standard mathematical notation.
  • Explore the concept of "without loss of generality" in mathematical proofs.
  • Investigate the implications of unique versus non-unique solutions in linear systems.
USEFUL FOR

Students of linear algebra, mathematics educators, and anyone involved in mathematical proofs or algorithm design will benefit from this discussion.

4Fun
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that replacing one equation in a system of linear equations by a non-zero multiple of itself does not change the solution of the system.


The Attempt at a Solution



I'm still relatively new to proofs, so this is what I have come up with:

Let S be a system of n equations and n unknowns and assume that S has a unique solution(is this assumption too strong?). Also assume that the other two elementary operations do not change the solution of S.
Let j be an arbitrary row and multiply row j by a non-zero constant k.
Now during the elimination process: Let i be the row that includes the current pivot element. Assume i<j, so that the element in the column of the pivot element in row j has to be eliminated. Assume that prior to multiplying row j by the constant k, you would have had to add a-times the i-th row to row j to eliminate the specific element. Since row j was multiplied by k, you now have to add a*k-times row i to row j in order to eliminate that element.

Well now I'm wondering wether this is basically sufficient to prove equivalence, or whether I should use induction to prove that this is valid for all elimination steps?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are doing quite well -- your proof is basically fine. You need not assume that S has a unique solution; if it doesn't multiplication of a row won't change that. You wrote one thing you didn't quite mean (it's really more like a typo) at the bottom of the second paragraph; you have to add a*k... I'm sure you meant multiply.

You were quite right to say that you were assuming the other elementary operations do not affect the solution. You do not need induction because you did not reference the size of the system in your proof.

One way to make these proofs clearer is to write as much as you can in mathematical notation. You can say -- let's consider the case that n = 3, without loss of generality. Write that the jth row is qx + ry + sz = t and after multiplication by k you have qkx+ rky+ skz = tk. Then say whatever you have to say about the ith row, again in mathematical notation.

If you are nervous about writing "without loss of generality" because you aren't sure whether that is the case, you write that the jth row is ##a_1x_1 + a_2x_2 + ... + a_nx_n = y_j##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K