Prove Lagrange Polynomials Basis of $\mathbb{R}_{n}[X]

God's Pen
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
hello everyone:smile:
for <br /> i=1,2,...,(n+1)<br /> let P_{i}(X)=\frac{\prod_{1\leq j\leq n+1,j\neq i}(X-a_j)}{\prod_{1\leq j\leq n+1,j\neq i}(a_i-a_j)}
prove that <br /> (P_1,P_2,...P_{n+1})<br /> is basis of <br /> \mathbb{R}_{n}[X]<br />.
i already have an answer but i don't understand some of it.
...
we have B=\{P_1, \cdots , P_{n+1} \} \subset \mathbb{R}_n[x] and \dim_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{R}[x]=n+1. so, in order to show that B is a basis for \mathbb{R}_n[x], we only need

to show that B is linearly independent.for any i we have P_i(a_i)=1 and P_j(a_i)=0, for i \neq j. now, to show that B is linearly independent, suppose that \sum_{j=1}^{n+1}c_j P_j(x)=0, for some
c_j \in \mathbb{R}. put x=a_i to get c_i=0. \ \Box
...
what i don't understand,
why should we have P_j(X) and not P_i(X)
why we had to find P_j(a_i) ?
and why we have \sum_{j=1}^{n+1} and not \sum_{i=1}^{n+1} ?
thank you so much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmmm..er...I don't know if I have understood your question properly ...but let me try to answer...


Your question is..why have we used j instead of i in the summation? Well..as far as I can see...i and j are just dummy variables ..it does not matter whether you use i or j or k...

You can very well use i if you want...but then you have to always remember that i denotes a general element...then..to prove the coefficients as zero, you can't put x=a_(i) as i is now reserved for the general element..you have to use some other letter in that case...


Now, as for the question as to why we had to find P_(j)(a_i)...by putting x=a_(i), you are reducing all elements of the sum to zero except the term with index j=i. This term is
c_i * P_(i)(a_i)=c_i.
 
krishna mohan said:
Hmmm..er...I don't know if I have understood your question properly ...but let me try to answer...


Your question is..why have we used j instead of i in the summation? Well..as far as I can see...i and j are just dummy variables ..it does not matter whether you use i or j or k...

You can very well use i if you want...but then you have to always remember that i denotes a general element...then..to prove the coefficients as zero, you can't put x=a_(i) as i is now reserved for the general element..you have to use some other letter in that case...


Now, as for the question as to why we had to find P_(j)(a_i)...by putting x=a_(i), you are reducing all elements of the sum to zero except the term with index j=i. This term is
c_i * P_(i)(a_i)=c_i.

thank you.
but if i and j are just dummy variables and it doesn't matter which one we put.
how could we have P_i(a_i)=1 and P_j(a_i)=0 ??
?
 
Welll...first thing you should realize is that even if you use i or j or k or a or b or c, the two expressions are fundamentally different...


P_{i}(a_{i}) has the the index for P and a as the same..

P_{j}(a_{i}) has the the index for P and a as different..of course, the assumption here being that, whatever i and j are, they are not equal..i.e if we put i=1, then j cannot be 1...


See the definition of P_{i}(X)...In the numerator, there is a product...the product contains all terms of the form X-a_{j} such that j is not equal to i...

Like, if i=3, then the product contains (X-a_{1}),(X-a_{2}),(X-a_{4}),(X-a_{5}) etc but not (X-a_{3})...


Then, you can see why putting X=a_{3} won't make the expression to zero..but X=a_{j}... such that j is not three...will reduce the whole term to zero...
 
krishna mohan said:
Welll...first thing you should realize is that even if you use i or j or k or a or b or c, the two expressions are fundamentally different...


P_{i}(a_{i}) has the the index for P and a as the same..

P_{j}(a_{i}) has the the index for P and a as different..of course, the assumption here being that, whatever i and j are, they are not equal..i.e if we put i=1, then j cannot be 1...


See the definition of P_{i}(X)...In the numerator, there is a product...the product contains all terms of the form X-a_{j} such that j is not equal to i...

Like, if i=3, then the product contains (X-a_{1}),(X-a_{2}),(X-a_{4}),(X-a_{5}) etc but not (X-a_{3})...


Then, you can see why putting X=a_{3} won't make the expression to zero..but X=a_{j}... such that j is not three...will reduce the whole term to zero...

i think I'm getting somewhere,thank u so mush for your help.
:smile:
 
##\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...
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

Back
Top