Prove Linear Algebra Statement: x1E1+...+xnEn=0 then xi=0

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a statement in linear algebra regarding the standard unit vectors in Rn. The original poster presents a proof that if a linear combination of these unit vectors equals the zero vector, then all corresponding coefficients must be zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts a proof by contradiction but questions the validity of assuming certain coefficients are zero. Other participants raise concerns about the assumptions made and suggest that the proof may not require contradiction.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the proof, offering hints and questioning assumptions. Some suggest that a direct approach may suffice, while others emphasize the importance of properties like linear independence and orthonormality in the proof.

Contextual Notes

There is a discussion about the relevance of orthonormality and linear independence of the basis vectors, with some participants expressing uncertainty about their necessity in the proof.

bonfire09
Messages
247
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let E1 = (1, 0, ... ,0), E2 = (0, 1, 0, ... ,0), ... , En = (0, ... ,0, 1)
be the standard unit vectors of Rn. Let x1 ... ,xn be numbers. Show that if
x1E1+...+xnEn=0 then xi=0 for all i.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Proof By contradiction
Assume to the contrary that x1E1+...+xnEn=0 then xi0 for some i. We also assume that x1...xi-1 and xi+1...xn are zero. Rewriting the equation we get
x1E1+.xpEp+...+xnEn=0 where xpEp is a nonzero scalar. xpEp=-x1E1-...-xpEp-1-xpEp+1-..-xnEn. But this leads to a contradiction since we assumed earlier that x1...xi-1 and xi+1...xn are zero. Thus x1E1+...+xnEn=0 xi=0 for all i.

Let me know where my proof begins to fall apart? And how do I go about it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bonfire09 said:
We also assume that x1...xi-1 and xi+1...xn are zero.

Why can you assume this??
 
Hint: making subscripts like you did in your post is very time-intensive. It is much easier for you to learn LaTeX. I will rewrite the first part of your post using LaTeX here, just push on "QUOTE" to see what I did.

Also see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3977517&postcount=3 for a guide.

Homework Statement


Let [itex]E_1 = (1, 0, ... ,0), E_2 = (0, 1, 0, ... ,0), ... , E_n = (0, ... ,0, 1)[/itex].
be the standard unit vectors of [itex]R^n[/itex]. Let [itex]x_1,...,x_n[/itex] be numbers. Show that if
[tex]x_1E_1 + ... + x_nE_n=0[/tex]
then [itex]x_i=0[/itex] for all i.
 
Oh thanks. Yeah my proof is bad I just realized I used the conclusion as my assumption.
I don't think I even need to use a proof by contradiction. Isn't just obvious that if one of the scalars is nonzero then the equation is not zero? Wouldn't that suffice as my proof.
 
bonfire09 said:
Oh thanks. Yeah my proof is bad I just realized I used the conclusion as my assumption.
I don't think I even need to use a proof by contradiction. Isn't just obvious that if one of the scalars is nonzero then the equation is not zero? Wouldn't that suffice as my proof.

Well, if your teacher is happy with "it is just obvious", then yes.

If not, try to calculate

[tex]x_1E_1+...+x_nE_n[/tex]

By definition, we know that [itex]E_1=(1,0,...)[/itex]. So what is [itex]x_1E_1[/itex]? What is [itex]x_2E_2[/itex]? What happens if you add them?
 
Oh x1E1=(x1,...,0) x2E2=(0,x2,...,0) all the way to xnEn=(0,...,xn). So by adding them together you get (x1,x2,...,xn). And they only way to get the zero vector is when x1...xn is zero? Would that be a way to explain it?
 
bonfire09 said:
Oh x1E1=(x1,...,0) x2E2=(0,x2,...,0) all the way to xnEn=(0,...,xn). So by adding them together you get (x1,x2,...,xn). And they only way to get the zero vector is when x1...xn is zero? Would that be a way to explain it?

Yeah, that's what I had in mind.
 
alright thanks.
 
Think about what relations the basis vectors satisfy, if you notice the right thing, the proof is pretty swift.
 
  • #10
The problem with the above proof, it doesn't seem to use the fact that the basis is orthonormal. You could potentially "prove something false".
 
  • #11
algebrat said:
The problem with the above proof, it doesn't seem to use the fact that the basis is orthonormal. You could potentially "prove something false".

Why does orthonormal matter?? I really doubt we need it.
 
  • #12
micromass said:
Why does orthonormal matter?? I really doubt we need it.

Oops, yeah you're right aren't you. I guess because the slick proof I was thinking of, was take x.e_1=x_1=0. That works right?

So I was just guessing that it relied on some qualities of the basis vector, but maybe the real mistake would be to not refer to the fact that they are linearly independent. We do have to mention that right?

But perhaps the quality of orthogonal was not relavant, as you say.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K