# Solve Sets of Form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$

• MHB
• mathmari
In summary, the conversation discusses the definitions of vector addition and subset in $\mathbb{R}^2$. It also includes a question about showing a specific property for sets. The expert summarizer provides a summary of the conversation and clarifies some points, such as the definition of $L$ being the same as $\lambda \begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 2 \end{pmatrix}$ and the need for a separate reverse argument to avoid confusion. The expert concludes by stating the equality $v+(w+X)=(v+w)+X$.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Hey!

Let $v\in \mathbb{R}^2$ be a vector and let $X\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ be a subset, then we define the subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$ : $$v+X:=\{v+x\mid x\in X\}$$
Let \begin{equation*}L:=\mathbb{R}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 2\end{pmatrix}=\left \{\begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\mid 2x-y=0\right \}\end{equation*} and let \begin{equation*}L_1:=\begin{pmatrix}3 \\ 0\end{pmatrix}+L , \ , L_2:=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}+L , \ , L_3:=\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}+L\end{equation*}

(a) Draw the sets $L, L_1, L_2, L_3$ in a coordinate system and show the following for each $v, w\in \mathbb{R}^2$ :

(i) $w\in v+L\Rightarrow w+L=v+L$

(ii) $(v+L)\cap (w+L)\neq \emptyset \Rightarrow w+L=v+L$

(b) Show for all $v, w\in \mathbb{R}^2$ and $X\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ that $v+(w+X)=(v+w)+X$.
I have done the following:

(a) To draw the sets : $L$is the points on the line $y=2x$, right? All the other sets are lines that have been shifted?

(i) Let $w\in v+L$.

This means that $w=v+\ell$, with $\ell\in L$.

We have that \begin{align*}x\in w+L& \iff x=w+\ell_1 , \ \ell_1\in L \\ & \iff x=(v+\ell)+\ell_1=v+(\ell+\ell_1) , \ \ell+\ell_1\in L \\ & \iff x\in v+L\end{align*}
So we get the equality $w+L=v+L$.

Is it corrct to use everywhere $\iff$ ?

(ii) Let $(v+L)\cap (w+L)\neq \emptyset$.

Then there is an element in the intersection, say $x$.

So $x\in (v+L)\cap (w+L)$ means that $x\in (v+L)$ and $x\in (w+L)$. Do we use now the stetement of (i) to get the desired result? (b) Do we have here the following equivalences \begin{align*}y\in v+(w+X) &\iff y=v+(w+x) , \text{ with } x\in X \\ & \iff y=(v+w)+x \\ & \iff y\in (v+w)+X\end{align*} :unsure:

mathmari said:
(a) To draw the sets : $L$is the points on the line $y=2x$, right? All the other sets are lines that have been shifted?

Hi mathmari!

Yes.
Btw, your definition \begin{equation*}L:=\mathbb{R}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 2\end{pmatrix}=\left \{\begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\mid 2x-y=0\right \}\end{equation*} is the same as \begin{equation*}L:=\mathbb{R}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 2\end{pmatrix}=\left \{\lambda\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 2 \end{pmatrix}\mid \lambda\in\mathbb R\right \}\end{equation*}
I think the latter is a bit easier to understand.

(i)
We have that \begin{align*}x\in w+L& \iff x=w+\ell_1 , \ \ell_1\in L \\ & \iff x=(v+\ell)+\ell_1=v+(\ell+\ell_1) , \ \ell+\ell_1\in L \\ & \iff x\in v+L\end{align*}
Is it correct to use everywhere $\iff$ ?

If I try to follow the argument in the reverse direction, it doesn't make much sense.
That is, we'd get as the first reverse step
\begin{align*}x\in v+L\implies x=(v+\ell)+\ell_1=v+(\ell+\ell_1) , \ \ell+\ell_1\in L \end{align*}
It's not exactly wrong because we can verify each reverse step with some extra thought, but I think it's better to make the argument for the reverse direction separately.
That is easier for the reader to understand, not to mention that it is easy to make mistakes otherwise.

(ii) Let $(v+L)\cap (w+L)\neq \emptyset$.

Then there is an element in the intersection, say $x$.

So $x\in (v+L)\cap (w+L)$ means that $x\in (v+L)$ and $x\in (w+L)$. Do we use now the stetement of (i) to get the desired result?

Yep. That works. (Nod)

(b) Do we have here the following equivalences \begin{align*}y\in v+(w+X) &\iff y=v+(w+x) , \text{ with } x\in X \\ & \iff y=(v+w)+x \\ & \iff y\in (v+w)+X\end{align*}
The last reverse step looks suspicious
$$y\in (v+w)+X\implies y=(v+w)+x$$
This is not generally true. If y in a set that does not imply that it is equal to some specific element in that set.
The converse is true though: if y is a specific element in a set, then y is an element of that set.
What is missing, is that we only require that "there is an $x\in X$" for which it applies, which you left out.
Either way, again I think it is better to make the reverse argument separately to avoid mistakes, and to make it easier for the reader to understand and verify.

Klaas van Aarsen said:
Btw, your definition \begin{equation*}L:=\mathbb{R}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 2\end{pmatrix}=\left \{\begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\mid 2x-y=0\right \}\end{equation*} is the same as \begin{equation*}L:=\mathbb{R}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 2\end{pmatrix}=\left \{\lambda\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 2 \end{pmatrix}\mid \lambda\in\mathbb R\right \}\end{equation*}
I think the latter is a bit easier to understand.

Now I am confused. I understand your definition, but why is this the same with $\left \{\begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\mid 2x-y=0\right \}$ ? How do we get the "minus" from your definition? :unsure:
Klaas van Aarsen said:
If I try to follow the argument in the reverse direction, it doesn't make much sense.
That is, we'd get as the first reverse step
\begin{align*}x\in v+L\implies x=(v+\ell)+\ell_1=v+(\ell+\ell_1) , \ \ell+\ell_1\in L \end{align*}
It's not exactly wrong because we can verify each reverse step with some extra thought, but I think it's better to make the argument for the reverse direction separately.
That is easier for the reader to understand, not to mention that it is easy to make mistakes otherwise.

So,to show that $w+L \subseteq v+L$ we have :
\begin{align*}x\in w+L& \Rightarrow x=w+\ell_1 , \ \ell_1\in L \\ & \Rightarrow x=(v+\ell)+\ell_1=v+(\ell+\ell_1) , \ \ell+\ell_1\in L \\ & \Rightarrow x\in v+L\end{align*}
And to show that $v+L \subseteq w+L$ we have :
\begin{align*}x\in v+L& \Rightarrow x=v+\tilde{\ell} , \ \tilde{\ell}\in L \\ & \Rightarrow x=v+\ell-\ell+\tilde{\ell} , \ \tilde{\ell}\in L \\ & \Rightarrow x=w+(\tilde{\ell}-\ell) , \ \tilde{\ell}\in L \\ & \Rightarrow x\in w+ L\end{align*}

:unsure:
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Yep. That works. (Nod)

I got stuck right now. Because at the previous statement we had $w$ and then the set $w+L$. Here we take an arbitrary $x$, or not? :unsure:
Klaas van Aarsen said:
The last reverse step looks suspicious
$$y\in (v+w)+X\implies y=(v+w)+x$$
This is not generally true. If y in a set that does not imply that it is equal to some specific element in that set.
The converse is true though: if y is a specific element in a set, then y is an element of that set.
What is missing, is that we only require that "there is an $x\in X$" for which it applies, which you left out.
Either way, again I think it is better to make the reverse argument separately to avoid mistakes, and to make it easier for the reader to understand and verify.

It holds that
\begin{align*}y\in v+(w+X) &\Rightarrow y=v+(w+x) , \text{ with } x\in X \\ & \Rightarrow y=(v+w)+x \\ & \Rightarrow y\in (v+w)+X\end{align*}
It also holds that
\begin{align*}y\in (v+w)+X &\Rightarrow y=(v+w)+x , \text{ with } x\in X \\ & \Rightarrow y=v+(w+x) \\ & \Rightarrow y\in v+(w+X)\end{align*}
Sowe get the equality $v+(w+X)=(v+w)+X$, right? :unsure:

mathmari said:
Now I am confused. I understand your definition, but why is this the same with $\left \{\begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\mid 2x-y=0\right \}$ ? How do we get the "minus" from your definition?

We get $x=\lambda$ and $y=2\lambda$ from "my" definition.
Substitute in $2x-y=0$ to find $2\cdot\lambda - 2\lambda=0$.
So they are the same aren't they?

Your version is actually a reworked version of the general definition, which is the one I gave.
Yours is a bit of an awkward definition though. (Bandit)

I got stuck right now. Because at the previous statement we had $w$ and then the set $w+L$. Here we take an arbitrary $x$, or not?

Didn't we have $w$ and then the set $v+L$ instead in the previous statement?
Now we have $x\in w+L\implies x+L=w+L$ when we apply the previous statement. And we also have $x\in v+L\implies x+L=v+L$. The rest is all correct. (Nod)

Klaas van Aarsen said:
We get $x=\lambda$ and $y=2\lambda$ from "my" definition.
Substitute in $2x-y=0$ to find $2\cdot\lambda - 2\lambda=0$.
So they are the same aren't they?

Your version is actually a reworked version of the general definition, which is the one I gave.
Yours is a bit of an awkward definition though. (Bandit)
Didn't we have $w$ and then the set $v+L$ instead in the previous statement?
Now we have $x\in w+L\implies x+L=w+L$ when we apply the previous statement. And we also have $x\in v+L\implies x+L=v+L$.

Thanks for the explanation, I understodd that now! :giggle:As for the graphs.

We have that $$\begin{pmatrix}x\\ y\end{pmatrix}\in L_1 \ \text{ then } \ \begin{pmatrix}x\\ y\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}3\\ 0\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}\lambda \\ 2\lambda \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\lambda+3 \\ 2\lambda \end{pmatrix}$$
So we set $x=\lambda+3$ and $y=2\lambda \Rightarrow \lambda=\frac{y}{2}$ then substituting this in the first equation we get $x=\frac{y}{2}+3 \Rightarrow y=2x-6$. \begin{equation*}\begin{pmatrix}x\\ y\end{pmatrix}\in L_2 \ \text{ then } \ \begin{pmatrix}x\\ y\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1\\ -1\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}\lambda \\ 2\lambda \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\lambda-1 \\ 2\lambda-1 \end{pmatrix}\end{equation*}
So $x=\lambda-1$ and $y=2\lambda -1\Rightarrow \lambda=\frac{y+1}{2}$ so we get $x=\frac{y+1}{2}-1 \Rightarrow y=2x+1$.

\begin{equation*}\begin{pmatrix}x\\ y\end{pmatrix}\in L_3 \ \text{ then } \ \begin{pmatrix}x\\ y\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}0\\ 1\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}\lambda \\ 2\lambda \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\lambda \\ 2\lambda+1 \end{pmatrix}\end{equation*}
So $x=\lambda$ and $y=2\lambda +1\Rightarrow y=2x +1$. (So we get the same line as the previous one?) :unsure:

Last edited by a moderator:
mathmari said:
As for the graphs.

(So we get the same line as the previous one?)
We can do it a little bit easier.
From "my" definition it should be clear that $L$ is a line through the origin with directional vector $\begin{pmatrix}1\\2\end{pmatrix}$.
The others are the same line but through the points $\begin{pmatrix}3 \\ 0\end{pmatrix}$, $\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}$, respectively $\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}$ instead of through the origin. :geek:

If we add the directional vector to the second one, we get the third one. So these are indeed the same lines. (Nod)

## 1. What is a "set of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$"?

A set of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is a collection of points in a two-dimensional space, where each point is represented by adding a vector $v$ to any point in the set $X$. This set is commonly used in linear algebra to represent translations and transformations in the plane.

## 2. How do you solve sets of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$?

To solve a set of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$, you need to first determine the vector $v$ and the set $X$. Then, you can add the vector $v$ to each point in the set $X$ to get the new set. This process is also known as translation or shifting of the set $X$.

## 3. What are some real-world applications of solving sets of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$?

Solving sets of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ has various real-world applications, such as in computer graphics, where it is used to transform and manipulate objects on a screen. It is also used in physics and engineering to represent and analyze the motion of objects in two-dimensional space.

## 4. Can sets of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ be solved in higher dimensions?

Yes, sets of form $v+X$ can be solved in higher dimensions, such as $\mathbb{R}^3$ or even higher. The process remains the same, where a vector $v$ is added to each point in the set $X$ to get the new set in the higher-dimensional space.

## 5. Are there any limitations to solving sets of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$?

One limitation to solving sets of form $v+X$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is that the vector $v$ must be constant and cannot vary for each point in the set $X$. Additionally, the set $X$ must be a finite set of points and cannot be an infinite set.

• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
52
Views
2K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
31
Views
2K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
6
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
10
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
2K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
14
Views
2K