MHB Solving Linear Systems with "m Equations & n Unknowns

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the terminology used to describe linear systems, specifically "m equations in n unknowns" versus "n unknowns in m equations." Participants agree that both phrases convey the same concept as long as m and n are clearly defined. The preference for one form over the other may stem from language differences, with the first form being more natural in English. Standard convention in mathematics describes a matrix of size m x n as having m rows (equations) and n columns (unknowns). Ultimately, clarity in definition is key, regardless of the phrasing used.
delgeezee
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
My book describes a linear system with "m equations in n unknowns."

Maybe this is a subtle detail but this confuses me. Shouldn't it be the other way around, "n unknowns in m equations?"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: terminology

It makes no difference, so long as m and n are defined.
 
Re: terminology

They both mean the same thing as far as I can tell. I think this may be a language problem, the first form might be more natural in english whereas the other sounds more natural in other languages (for instance french).​
 
Re: terminology

I'd write the first form as "m equations with n unknowns."
Anyway, the two forms mean the same thing.
 
Re: terminology

Like others said the variable names can be whatever you want to use, but standard convention is that a matrix of size $m \times n$ corresponds to a linear system of equations, which means that there are $m$ rows and $n$ columns. That corresponds to $m$ equations and $n$ variables.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K