Setting the record straight on rank, nullity, etc.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jamin2112
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    rank
Jamin2112
Messages
973
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



(Pictured)

screen-capture-33.png


Homework Equations



Some Wikipedia and Wolfram MathWorld definitions.

In linear algebra, a family of vectors is linearly independent if none of them can be written as a linear combination of finitely many other vectors in the collection.

The rank of a matrix A is the number of linearly independent rows or columns of A.

In linear algebra, the kernel or null space (also nullspace) of a matrix A is the set of all vectors x for which Ax = 0.

The nullity of a linear map of vector spaces is the dimension of its null space.

The Attempt at a Solution



I get a little confused with this stuff.

Say that we're looking at the first matrix. It can be row reduced as follows.

screen-capture-3-14.png


So it looks like we know that Ax = 0 whenever

x3 = -1/2 x1
and
x3 = x2.

In other words, any vector x of the form

screen-capture-1-15.png



, where x3 is any real number, will solve Ax = 0. So the above picture is the basis is the null space of A; and since it has one vector, the rank of the null space, the nullity, is 1.

Tell me if I'm understanding this; and if I'm not understanding it, explain it to as if I were a 5-year-old.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
first your vector is not correct
x3 = -1/2 x1
x3 = x2
they lead to (start by setting x1=1)
(1, -1/2, -1/2)c

notice i used c as a scalar multplier, don't use a component, that is confusing

Now say you have a matrix A and want to find vectors x, such that Ax=0

Ax represents a set of linear equations, when you are row reducing you are just manipulating the linear equations whilst still solving them

now any vectors that satisfy Ax=0 are by definition in the nullspace of A.

As you have shown the set of vectors can be spanned by a single basis vector it has dimension 1, ie. the nullity of A is 1.

Geometrically the nullspace of A is the line through the origin with direction (1, -1/2, -1/2)
 
An n by n matrix maps vectors in R^n to vectors in R^n. If the m atrix is invertible, it maps R^n to all of R^n (the mapping is both "one-to-one" and "onto"). If it is not invertible, it maps R^n into some subspace of R^n. The "rank" of the matrix is the dimension of that subspace. Of course, that means the mapping is not "onto" and so cannot be "one-to-one".

A0= 0 for any matrix A so the one element of R^n we can be sure is in that subspace is 0. If A is not "one-to-one", more than on member of R^n (in fact, an entire subspace) is mapped to 0. That is the "nullspace" of A and its dimension is the "nullity". One can show that the sum of those two dimensions, rank+ nullity, must be n.
In the first case here,
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 2 & -1 & 5 \\-1 & 0 & -2\end{bmatrix}

Finding the nullspace is the same as solving the equation
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 2 & -1 & 5 \\-1 & 0 & -2\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \\ z\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 0\end{bmatrix}
You could solve that, of course, by setting up an "augemented" matrix and row reducing- but since the last column will be all "0"s, you don't really need that- just row reduce the matrix itself.
If you subract twice the first row from the second and add the first row to the third you get
\begin{bmatrix}1 & 1 & 1\\ 0 & -3 & 3 \\ 0 & 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}
Now, if you divide the second row by -3, then subtract that from the third you get
\begin{bmatrix}1 & 1 & 1\\ 0 & 1 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}

We can interpret those as the equations x+ y+ z= 0, y- z= 0. From the second, z= y. Putting that into the first, x+ y+ y= x+ 2y= 0 so that x= -2y. That is, any vector in the nullspace is of the form <x, y, z>= <-2y, y, y>= y<-2, 1, 1>. The null space is 1 dimensional with basis {<-2, 1, 1>}.

We can also use that reduce matrix to say that any vector in the row space is of the form
\begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \\ z\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 \\ 0 &amp; 1 &amp; -1\\ 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}u \\ v \\ w\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}u+ v+ w \\ v- w\\ 0\end{bmatrix}
That is, a vector <x, y, z> in the row space is of the form x= u+ v+ w, y= v- w, z= 0. The first two are "independent" which means that vectors in the row space are of the form <x, y, 0>= <x, 0, 0>+ <0, y, 0>= x<1, 0, 0>+ y<0, 1, 0>. It is two-dimensional with \{&lt;1, 0, 0&gt;, &lt;0, 1, 0&gt;\} as basis.

Of course, rank+ nullity= 2+ 1= 3.
 
lanedance said:
first your vector is not correct
x3 = -1/2 x1
x3 = x2
they lead to (start by setting x1=1)
(1, -1/2, -1/2)c

Let me try this again.


If I reduce the matrix to [1 0 2; 0 1 -1; 0 0 0], then I know that Ax = 0 whenever

x1 + 2x2 = 0
and
x2 = x3.

So we let x1 be an arbitrary constant c (Why?). Because c + 2x2 = 0, x2 is -1/2 of c, and because x3 is x2, x3 is also 1/2 of c. We have that x = c(1 -1/2 -1/2)T solves Ax = 0. In other words, I could do a loop in MATLAB like

for i = 1:10^6
x1 = rand;
x = [x1 -.5*x1 -.5*x1]';
Ax
end


and every Ax printed would be the zero vector.

The "basis" by definition is c(1 -1/2 -1/2)T, and we'd say that (1 -1/2 -1/2)T "spans" the "null space" of A. The basis has one vector; so its "nullity" is 1. The matrix has 3 columns; so its "rank" is 3 - 1 = 2.

I guess another thing that confuses me is "rank" versus "nullity." The rank is the number of linearly independent columns of a matrix; so to see whether there is non-trivial solution to Ax = 0 is to see whether all the vectors of A are linearly independent. It seems like we're using the same procedure for rank and nullity ... Can someone explain to me the subtle difference between the two?
 
the two procedure are related as rank + nullity =n

if the only solution of Ax = 0 is x=0, then rank(A) = n
 
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...
Back
Top