{u1, ,uk} is linearly dependent iff {[u1]_B, [uk]B} is.

  • Thread starter Thread starter peripatein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linearly Uk
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving a relationship between linear dependence of a set of vectors in a vector space and their representations in terms of a given basis. The subject area is linear algebra, specifically focusing on concepts of linear dependence and independence.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the logical equivalence of proving linear independence and dependence, with one participant attempting to establish a proof for the dependence case based on their findings for independence.

Discussion Status

The discussion is exploring the logical implications of proving statements about linear dependence and independence. Some participants are questioning the validity of simply declaring a proof without thorough justification, indicating a focus on rigor in mathematical proofs.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the importance of providing complete proofs in homework submissions, as well as a potential concern regarding the clarity of the logical steps involved in proving the equivalence of the statements.

peripatein
Messages
868
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Homework Statement



Given a vector space V and its basis B = {v1, v2, ..., vn}, I was asked to prove that:
a group of vectors {u1,...,uk} in V is linearly dependent if and only if {[u1]B,...[uk]B} is linearly dependent.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I proved that a group of vectors {u1,...,uk} in V is linearly independent if and only if {[u1]B,...[uk]B} is linearly independent. Following the principles of logic, that would be the same as proving dependence, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, and it is an easy one-liner to prove it instead of just declare it.
 
So, in general, proving (A if and only if B) is equivalent to, and hence may be proven by, proving (-A if and only if -B), correct?
 
peripatein said:
So, in general, proving (A if and only if B) is equivalent to, and hence may be proven by, proving (-A if and only if -B), correct?

Yes. But declaring it doesn't make it so. If I were handing in a homework proof of A iff B and I instead handed in a proof that -A iff -B, I wouldn't just stop there even though you might consider the conclusion to be trivial from there.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K