Proving dependent columns when the rows are dependent

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a mathematical relationship involving vectors and their dependencies. Participants explore the implications of certain assumptions regarding the relationships between the components of these vectors, specifically focusing on whether dependent rows imply dependent columns in a matrix context.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a problem involving vectors and attempts to derive a conclusion based on assumptions about their relationships.
  • Another participant suggests that the assumptions made may not be valid and emphasizes the importance of proving those assumptions rather than assuming them.
  • A different participant points out that the condition of nonzero components (abcd ≠ 0) implies that the constant λ must also be nonzero, which is relevant to the argument being made.
  • There is a suggestion to rewrite the matrix in a specific form to illustrate the relationship between the columns, indicating that the first column is a multiple of the second.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the logic connecting the derived equations to the original assumptions, seeking clarity on how to express this connection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the assumptions made. There are competing views on how to approach the proof, with some arguing that the assumptions are necessary while others caution against assuming what needs to be proven.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful consideration of assumptions and counterexamples, suggesting that the discussion may be limited by the specific cases being considered.

kostoglotov
Messages
231
Reaction score
6
I feel like I almost understand the solution I've come up with, but a step in the logic is missing. I'll post the question and my solution in LaTeX form.

Paraphrasing of text question below in LaTeX. Text question can be seen in its entirety via this imgur link: http://i.imgur.com/41fvDRN.jpg

<br /> \ if \begin{pmatrix}<br /> a\\<br /> b<br /> \end{pmatrix} \ is \ a \ multiple \ of \begin{pmatrix}<br /> c\\<br /> d<br /> \end{pmatrix} \ with \ abcd \neq 0, show \ that \begin{pmatrix}<br /> a\\<br /> c<br /> \end{pmatrix} \ is \ a \ multiple \ of \begin{pmatrix}<br /> b\\<br /> d<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

My solution so far

<br /> assume \ \lambda \begin{pmatrix}<br /> c\\<br /> d<br /> \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}<br /> a\\<br /> b<br /> \end{pmatrix} \rightarrow \begin{matrix}<br /> a = \lambda c\\<br /> b = \lambda d<br /> \end{matrix}<br />

<br /> now \ assume \ \gamma \begin{pmatrix}<br /> b\\<br /> d<br /> \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}<br /> a\\<br /> c<br /> \end{pmatrix} \rightarrow \begin{matrix}<br /> a = \gamma b\\<br /> c = \gamma d<br /> \end{matrix}<br />

So I'm making two assumptions

Let's take the assumptions and put them into a system of four equations

1: \ a = \lambda c \ \ \ \ 2: \ b = \lambda d \\ 3: \ a = \gamma b \ \ \ \ 4: \ c = \gamma d

Now if we sub 3 into 1 to get A, and sub 2 into A to get B and then sub 4 into B to get C

C \rightarrow \lambda \gamma d = \lambda \gamma d

Similarly if we, sub 2 into 3 to get A, and 1 into A to get B, and 4 into B to get C

C \rightarrow \lambda \gamma d = \lambda \gamma d

I want to stop trying all the possible ways to get C now, because I want to look for a generalized way to show that they will all end up at the same point.

But more than this...what is the step of logic that connects the final equation C to proving the first two assumptions. I feel like this should prove the assumptions, but I don't know how exactly, or how exactly to express it.

Thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\gamma = \frac {c}{d}
Then \frac {a}{b} =\frac {\lambda c}{\lambda d} = \frac{c}{d}.
 
kostoglotov said:
So I'm making two assumptions
You have to prove those assumptions.
And it is hard to prove things that are wrong...
Actually, there are just two special cases where this assumption holds.

If you think you need "assumptions", look for counterexamples first. They are easy to find here, and they save a lot of work.
 
kostoglotov said:
My solution so far

<br /> assume \ \lambda \begin{pmatrix}<br /> c\\<br /> d<br /> \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}<br /> a\\<br /> b<br /> \end{pmatrix} \rightarrow \begin{matrix}<br /> a = \lambda c\\<br /> b = \lambda d<br /> \end{matrix}<br />

<br /> now \ assume \ \gamma \begin{pmatrix}<br /> b\\<br /> d<br /> \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}<br /> a\\<br /> c<br /> \end{pmatrix} \rightarrow \begin{matrix}<br /> a = \gamma b\\<br /> c = \gamma d<br /> \end{matrix}<br />
With this second assumption, you are assuming the fact that you are supposed to prove! That won't get you anywhere. Instead, work with the first assumption, which is given: ##(a,b)## is a multiple of ##(c,d)##. So that means there is some constant ##\lambda## such that ##a = \lambda c## and ##b = \lambda d##.

By the way, note that the condition ##abcd \neq 0## means that all four of ##a,b,c,d## are nonzero, and therefore ##\lambda## is also nonzero.

Now we can rewrite the matrix as
$$\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\
c & d \\
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda c & \lambda d \\
c & d \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
From this, you can easily see that first column is a constant multiple of the second column. (What is the constant?)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kostoglotov
jbunniii said:
With this second assumption, you are assuming the fact that you are supposed to prove! That won't get you anywhere. Instead, work with the first assumption, which is given: ##(a,b)## is a multiple of ##(c,d)##. So that means there is some constant ##\lambda## such that ##a = \lambda c## and ##b = \lambda d##.

By the way, note that the condition ##abcd \neq 0## means that all four of ##a,b,c,d## are nonzero, and therefore ##\lambda## is also nonzero.

Now we can rewrite the matrix as
$$\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\
c & d \\
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda c & \lambda d \\
c & d \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
From this, you can easily see that first column is a constant multiple of the second column. (What is the constant?)

Nice one! Very clear explanation, thanks :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K