What is the Orthogonal Decomposition of x from b in terms of RowA and NulA?

413
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Let A=
[ 1 -2 -1 2]
[-1 0 3 -2 ]
[ 3 -4 -5 6]

(sorry, can't line up the columns)

I think I've done a) and b) correctly, I don't really understand c), d) and e)


a) Find RowA and Nul A

RowA={( 1, -2, -1, 2), (0, 1, -1, 0)}
Nul A= {(3, 1, 1, 0), (-2, 0, 0, 1)}

b) If b=(10 -8 28), find parametric vector form of x, the general vector in the set S={ x | Ax=b }


x= (8, -1, 0, 0) + x3 (3, 1, 1, 0) +x4 (-2, 0, 0, 1)


c) We know that (RowA) perp = Nul A. Find the orthogonal decompositon of x, the vector from b), as a sum of two vectors r ∈ RowA and n ∈ NulA.

d) Use c) to find the set S ∩ Row A, the set of elements that are in both S and RowA.

e) Suppose that A is an m x n matrix. Prove if the set S={ x | Ax=b } is non empty, then the set S ∩ RowA consists of a single vector.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nevermind, i figured it out.
 
The rowspace of A has two vectors?
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top