Proving a set is linearly independant

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around methods for proving the linear independence of sets of vectors and functions. Participants explore various techniques applicable to both finite-dimensional vector spaces and function spaces, including the use of row reduction, determinants, and Taylor series expansions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes using row reduction to determine linear independence, concluding that a zero row indicates dependence.
  • Another participant suggests that the third vector in the first set can be expressed as a linear combination of the first two, indicating dependence.
  • Some participants propose computing the determinant of the matrix formed by the vectors, noting that a zero determinant implies dependence.
  • One participant raises a concern about the dimensionality of the space, questioning whether a 3x3 matrix could be derived from the original 4x4 matrix for determinant testing.
  • Another participant discusses the periodicity of functions, arguing that a linear combination of periodic functions cannot equal a non-periodic function, suggesting independence of the set {2x^4, sin x, cos 3x}.
  • A different approach is proposed, where assuming linear dependence leads to a contradiction using Taylor series expansions to demonstrate independence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various methods for proving linear independence, but no consensus is reached on a single approach. Multiple competing views and techniques remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some methods discussed depend on the dimensionality of the vector space and the specific properties of the functions involved. There are unresolved questions regarding the application of determinants and the implications of periodicity in function spaces.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners in mathematics and physics who are exploring linear algebra concepts, particularly in relation to vector spaces and function spaces.

cathal84
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I have two questions for you.

Typically when trying to find out if a set of vectors is linearly independent i put the vectors into a matrix and do RREF and based on that i can tell if the set of vectors is linearly independent. If there is no zero rows in the RREF i can say that the vectors are linear independent.

I Done the RREF of -> C = {(−2, 3, 0, 1),(2, 0, 3, 1),(0, 3, 3, 2)} and have gotten

1,0,1,0
0,1,1,0
0,0,0,0
0,0,0,0

Leaving me to the conclusion that it is not linearly independent.
Is there another way i could of proved it was not linear independent?Also my second Question here,
vector space V = {f : R → R}, prove that the set {2x^4 ,sin x, cos 3x} is linearly independent.

How would i go about proving that this is linear independence since i am unable to do my RREF with this?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Another way to prove the first set is dependent is to observe that the third vector equals the sum of the first two vectors.

For the second question, assume there are three constants a, b, c that give a linear combination of the three functions that is zero. Then find values of x for which the linear sum gives a nonzero number. I'd go for x as multiples of pi.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cathal84 and jedishrfu
You can also compute the determinant and if zero then you know they are dependent.
 
jedishrfu said:
You can also compute the determinant and if zero then you know they are dependent.
I tried going down that path, then got stuck when I realized that, because there are three vectors in the set and the containing space is 4D, the det of the 4 x 4 matrix will be zero even if the three are independent. That made me wonder whether we must have to somehow get a 3 x 3 matrix out of this and examine the determinant of that. But the natural way to do that seemed to be row reduction of the 4 x 4 matrix, which might be too much like the OP's original solution.

Is there a simple (ie non-row-reduction) way of getting a 3 x 3 matrix out of this that we can test for singularity?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cathal84
I think it is not hard to show that the sum of periodic functions with periods ##p1, p2 ## so that ##p1/p2 ## is rational, is itself periodic, and so are linear combnations of these functions. But no multiple of ##2x^4 ## will be periodic, so ## k_1cos3x+k_2cos3x ## , a periodic function, will never equal the non-periodic function ##k_3 2x^4 ## for ##k_1, k_2, k_3 ## constants, I assume Real(meaning equality as functions, obviously not meaning that there is no x that satisfies the equality, an interesting question itself).
But this is an ugly solution because it is too ad-hoc and difficult to generalize.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cathal84
cathal84 said:
I have two questions for you.
Also my second Question here,
vector space V = {f : R → R}, prove that the set {2x^4 ,sin x, cos 3x} is linearly independent.

How would i go about proving that this is linear independence since i am unable to do my RREF with this?

Here's a different take:

I'd be very tempted to assume they are linearly dependent and show a contradiction. That is a scaled sum of the three = 0, as we assume linearly dependent. Rearrange terms and we can say:

##cos(3x) = \alpha 2x^4 + \beta sin(x) ##

Now write out the Taylor series for these functions and it should jump out at you that this is not true. Most notably the cosine has a 1 as its first term in the Taylor series and the right hand has no terms with a constant.

Technically the above demonstrates cos(3x)'s independence from the right hand side. For good measure you'd want to show that ##x^4 \neq \gamma sin(x)## as well -- which should be very obvious when using the Taylor series for sine function.

(There's probably a cleaner way to do this -- my thinking is clearly inspired by using Gramm Schmidt which I originally wanted to use here but I decided the way I'd apply it wasn't fully justified.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cathal84

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K