Solving 4 linear equations with five unknown variables?

Click For Summary
To solve four linear equations with five unknown variables, one must recognize that a complete solution is impossible due to the insufficient number of equations. Instead, a specific value can be assigned to one variable, allowing the remaining four to be expressed in terms of that variable. The discussion also touches on finding a basis for a subspace defined by a set of vectors, emphasizing that it is not necessary for the set to span the entire space to establish a basis. When constructing an augmented matrix, the presence of a row of zeros indicates a dependency among the vectors. Ultimately, understanding the relationships between the vectors is crucial for determining whether they span the space and for identifying a suitable basis.
franz32
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
I hope some can help me here.

What is the best strategy in solving 4 linear equations with five unknown variables?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Well, of course, you cannot "solve" four equations in five unknowns. What you can do is select any specific value for one of the five unknowns and then solve the four equations for the other four.

Equivalently, you could solve for four of the unknowns "in terms of the fifth". That is, you treat one of the unknowns as if it were a constant and solving for the other four so that you have something of the form:
a= a function of e, b= a function of e, c= a function of e, d= a function of e, where a, b, c, d, e are the five unknowns.


Now you could choose any value you like for e and calculate the other four. Whether it is best to solve the four linear equations by substitution or Gaussian elimination depends on the particular equations.
 
General Rule

No. of Unknown = No. of Equation

If above is not true u will end up in finding relation

As Halls has already told u about the relation
 
Can anyone help me again

Hello guys! I did understand what you are talking about. =)
But not that really understand fully. I tell you what I don't
understand.

Let say D = {v1, v2, v3, v4, v5} where v1 = (1, 1, 0, -1); v2 = (0, 1, 2, 1); v3 = (1, 0, 1, -1); v4 = (1, 1, -6, -3) and v5 = (-1, -5, 1, 0). In order for me to find a basis for the subspace W = Span D of R^4, I must show that D spans R^4 right? If this fails, then, can I still find a basis for it?

(a,b,c,d) = k1v1 + k2v2+ k3v3 + k4v4 + k5v5. When I made an
augmented matrix out of it, I reached ... " 0 0 0 0 | b + c -3d - 4a.
What does it mean?

When do I know if a subspace does not span?
 


Originally posted by franz32
Hello guys! I did understand what you are talking about. =)
But not that really understand fully. I tell you what I don't
understand.

Let say D = {v1, v2, v3, v4, v5} where v1 = (1, 1, 0, -1); v2 = (0, 1, 2, 1); v3 = (1, 0, 1, -1); v4 = (1, 1, -6, -3) and v5 = (-1, -5, 1, 0). In order for me to find a basis for the subspace W = Span D of R^4, I must show that D spans R^4 right? If this fails, then, can I still find a basis for it?

(a,b,c,d) = k1v1 + k2v2+ k3v3 + k4v4 + k5v5. When I made an
augmented matrix out of it, I reached ... " 0 0 0 0 | b + c -3d - 4a.
What does it mean?

When do I know if a subspace does not span?

No, in order to find a basis for subspace W= Span D, you do NOT need to show that D spans R^4.
Suppose v1= (1, 1, 0, -1), v2= (2, 2, 0, -2), v3= (3, 3, 0, -3), v4= (4, 4, 0, -4) and v5= (5, 5, 0, -5). D certainly does NOT span R^4. W= Span D is the set of all vectors of the form (a, a, 0, -a) where a is any real number. That is one-dimensional and has anyone of the vectors given as basis: {v1} will do nicely.

In the example you give, I would set this up as a matrix having each of those vectors as row and "row-reduce" I get 4 non-zero rows (the last row all zeroes) so, yes, the example you give does span all of R^4 and a perfectly good basis is {(1,0,0,0),(0,1,0,0),(0,0,1,0),(0,0,0,1)}.

If I did that with the example I gave, I would see all rows except the first become all zeroes and would know that that first row constituted the basis.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K