Question: What is Wrong With the Argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lalligagger
  • Start date Start date
lalligagger
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Sorry all my vectors look like superscripts, don't know what that's about.

Homework Statement



What is wrong with the following argument?

Let A be an arbitrary m x n matrix. The vector A\vec{x} is obviously in CA so it can't be in N(AT) unless it's the zero vector, since CA is orthogonal to N(AT). Thus the only solution to ATA\vec{x}=\vec{0} is \vec{x}=\vec{0} and ATA is an invertible matrix (by FTIM).

Homework Equations



The Fundamental Theorem of Invertible Matrices.

The Attempt at a Solution



I don't know if I understand the (incorrect) reasoning behind this argument. Mainly, I don't understand the connection between the end of the second sentence and the first half of the last sentence. What does CA and N (AT) being orthogonal have to do with the equation ATA\vec{x}=\vec{0}?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lalligagger said:
Sorry all my vectors look like superscripts, don't know what that's about.

Homework Statement



What is wrong with the following argument?

Let A be an arbitrary m x n matrix. The vector A\vec{x} is obviously in CA so it can't be in N(AT) unless it's the zero vector, since CA is orthogonal to N(AT). Thus the only solution to ATA\vec{x}=\vec{0} is \vec{x}=\vec{0} and ATA is an invertible matrix (by FTIM).
It would help a lot if you would tell us (1) what CA and N(AT) mean, and (2) what this argument is supposed to prove.

Homework Equations



The Fundamental Theorem of Invertible Matrices.

The Attempt at a Solution



I don't know if I understand the (incorrect) reasoning behind this argument. Mainly, I don't understand the connection between the end of the second sentence and the first half of the last sentence. What does CA and N (AT) being orthogonal have to do with the equation ATA\vec{x}=\vec{0}?
 
CA is the column space of the matrix A and N(AT) is the null space of A transpose. Sorry, I thought that was standard notation.
The argument says that given an arbitrary matrix A, the matrix ATA (the matrix you get when you multiply A by A transpose on the left) is invertible. The point of the problem is to recognize that this isn't true and find the faulty reasoning.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Back
Top