Row reduced matrix has coefficents

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3.14159265358979
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Row
3.14159265358979
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
I just want to confirm these two questions. Thanks in advance.

(1) Describe all solutions of Ax = 0 in parametric vector form, where A is row equivalent to the given matrix.

\left(\begin{array}{uvwxyz}1 & 5 & 2 & -6 & 9 & 0 \\0 & 0 & 1 & -7 & 4 & -8\\0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right)

There are no solutions because row 3 and 4 contradict each other. Row 3 implies no solution.


(2) Suppose A is a 3x3 matrix and y is a vector in R^{3} such that the equation Ax = y does not have a solution. Does there exist a vector z in R^{3} such that the equation Ax = z has a unique solution?

I said no because if the vector y does not have a solution in R^{3}, then this implies the last row of the row reduced matrix has coefficents that are all zero. Therefore, it either has no solution or an infinite number of solutions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rows three and four do not contradict themselves. All it says is that, with the obvious notation x_6=0 from row 3, and, from row 4, that 0=0. Row 4 contradicts nothing. Besides which, x=0 is always a solution, or otherwise you are saying that the kernel is empty, and since it is a nonempty subspace...
 
Problem 2 is related to the "Fredholm Alternative". The equation Ax= b has a unique solution if A is "non-singular". If A is singular then Ax= b has either no solution or an infinite number of solutions depending on b. In this case, since Ax= y has no solution, it might be (and in fact must be) the case that there exist z such that Ax= z has an infinite number of solutions but there cannot exist z such that Ax= z has a unique solution.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top