Solving Rational Dependence in Vector Spaces

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bndnchrs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rational
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the measure of the set of vectors in R^k that are rationally dependent (RD). Rational dependence is defined as the existence of a vector with rational coefficients whose inner product with a given vector equals zero. The participants conclude that while rational vectors are dense in R^n, they form a set of measure zero. The key question raised is whether the set of RD vectors has nonzero measure in R^k, with insights suggesting that the measure of the set of all vectors perpendicular to a given vector is zero, leading to the conclusion that RD vectors also have measure zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector spaces, specifically R^k
  • Knowledge of rational dependence in linear algebra
  • Familiarity with concepts of measure theory
  • Basic understanding of inner products and orthogonality
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of measure zero sets in measure theory
  • Explore the implications of rational dependence in higher-dimensional vector spaces
  • Study the properties of dense sets in real analysis
  • Learn about the relationship between rational and irrational vectors in R^n
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of linear algebra, and researchers in measure theory who are exploring the properties of rationally dependent vectors in vector spaces.

bndnchrs
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hi guys:

I've got a problem I've been working on for some weeks and this might be the key to unlocking it.

The question is:

Given a vector in R^k, what is the measure of the set of vectors whose components are rationally dependent?

Rationally dependent means for a given vector, you may find a vector with rational coefficients such that their inner product is 0.

(1/2,1/3,1/6) is RD because of (2,3,-12), for example.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
(1/2,1/3,1/6) is RD because of (2,3,-12), for example.
But this is easily generalized: every 3-tuple (p,q,r) with rational entries p,q,r is RD because
(p,q,r)\cdot (1/p,1/q,-2/r)=0
and 1/p,1/q,-2/r are rational. This is then easily generalized to R^n instead of R^3. Hence the set of RD vectors contains then ones with rational entries. But the latter one is already dense in R^n.
 
I suppose it was late, and this meant I had to improperly state the question!

Really, the question is does the set of RD vectors have nonzero measure over R^k, not whether they are dense or not. Of course the rationals are rationally dependent and dense, but they are a set of measure zero in R. So then the issue is whether a.a. collections of irrationals are RD, and my intuition says no.

So RID vectors requires k-1 components to be irrational. I don't have a hold on determining exactly "how much" of these sets are RD.
 
Last edited:
I think I understand the statement, but I'm not totally sure. I suppose that you mean what is the measure of the set of all vectors which are rationally dependent (if this is even measurable)? I've never heard of rationally dependent before...

I think this is the answer:
Suppose r\in\mathbb{R}^n. Note that the measure of the set of all vectors perpendicular to r is zero. Now, what is the measure of a countable union of sets of measure zero?

Does that help?
 
tmccullough said:
I think I understand the statement, but I'm not totally sure. I suppose that you mean what is the measure of the set of all vectors which are rationally dependent (if this is even measurable)? I've never heard of rationally dependent before...

I think this is the answer:
Suppose r\in\mathbb{R}^n. Note that the measure of the set of all vectors perpendicular to r is zero. Now, what is the measure of a countable union of sets of measure zero?

Does that help?

I don't see why you're only taking a countable union. There are certainly uncountably many vectors in Rn.A modified argument seems to work though. Pick a vector with rational components q in Qn. Any rationally dependent vector is perpendicular to some such q, so lies in one of countably many measure zero sets
 
Last edited:
That's not modified at all, that is the argument. I didn't want to give everything away.
 
Much appreciated. I believe this solves my question.

Don't worry about revealing the "proof", I would say that this problem is just a redefinition of a small mechanism in a larger problem, which has nothing to do with linear algebra, actually, so letting me in on the mechanism is of no great detriment to my progress.

Thank you both!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
8K