Linear Algebra - Lecture 11 - Non-Homogeneous Linear Systems

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 6 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 17

  • @jps7037
    @jps7037 4 роки тому +8

    Greatest explanation I've ever heard. Now I got it!

  • @xoppa09
    @xoppa09 6 місяців тому

    Super clear!
    To summarize or recap (with a slight abuse of notation) :
    Given an m x n matrix A with entries from the set of real numbers (more generally from a field F),
    a constant vector b in R^n (more generally F^n), and 0 in R^m (more generally F^m),
    we can define H = { x in R^n : Ax = 0 } and G = { x in R^n : Ax = b }.
    Then if G is nonempty, and you know in particular what an element of G is,
    which we will denote by the vector p, then it can be shown that G = { p } + H.
    The latter expression { p } + H is the set of vectors which are the sum of p and elements in H.
    if G is empty , then G is empty and we can say nothing further about G, and the linear system is inconsistent.

  • @user-xf7pl4hj5u
    @user-xf7pl4hj5u 4 роки тому +2

    The best lecture in Linear Algebra. Thank you!!

  • @randyjones2812
    @randyjones2812 3 роки тому +1

    Thank you sir! These are truly great videos you have here. Much better than my professor.

  • @ahmadmansoorhakimzada8647
    @ahmadmansoorhakimzada8647 4 роки тому

    Thank you very much, I learned a lot. I started from 1st video and will continue to the end.

  • @tenyomtenye8055
    @tenyomtenye8055 2 роки тому

    great lectures.....this is so helpful ...thanks

  • @starcrosswongyl
    @starcrosswongyl 3 роки тому +1

    Hi,
    Firstly your lectures has been truly amazing, i am grateful for your sharing of knowledge.
    I would like to ask the following:
    Is the turquoise plane in 3:28 the null space of A?

  • @ws8288
    @ws8288 3 роки тому

    One question Sir , why is it that in 3:16 , the sum of the two vectors are represented by the orange line when it is clear that the sum is the yellow line ?

    • @HamblinMath
      @HamblinMath  3 роки тому

      The orange line represents *all* of the solutions to Ax=b. The yellow vector represents *one* of those solutions.

  • @PabloFlexscobar222
    @PabloFlexscobar222 Рік тому

    extremely helpful thank u!

  • @maxpercer7119
    @maxpercer7119 Рік тому

    Question that immediately comes to mind, can we use the ideas suggested in the video to prove that if Ax = b is consistent and has more than one solution then it has an infinite number of solutions.
    My proof attempt:
    Let p and p ' be distinct solutions to Ax = b. Then I claim there are an infinite number of solutions of the form p + t * ( p ' - p ) for any t in R .
    Then using linear properties of matrix arithmetic
    A ( p + t * ( p ' - p ) ) = Ap + A( t * (p ' - p ) ) = Ap + t * A( p ' - p ) = b + t * (Ap ' - Ap ) = b + t * ( b - b) = b + t * 0 = b + 0 = b.
    Since t can range over R, and R is infinite, there are an infinite number of solutions.
    Note that this does not exhaust all the solutions to Ax = b, only shows that if there are two distinct solutions there must be an infinite number of them.
    Geometrically this proof says that if the points p , p ' are in the affine subspace of solutions to Ax = b,
    then the line containing p, p' (a line contains an infinite number of points) is also contained in the affine subspace.
    Nice image of affine subspace en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space
    I don't know too much about affine subspaces but it's clear from the image that the solution space of Ax = b is not a vector space when b ≠ 0, but such a space still has some nice properties like closure under subtraction.

  • @victorthai8364
    @victorthai8364 4 роки тому

    Great lecture!

  • @Donotmicrowavee
    @Donotmicrowavee 4 роки тому

    i understand better now
    thank you!!!!!

  • @GhasnaAlHumaimi
    @GhasnaAlHumaimi 10 місяців тому

    Thanks.

  • @stephenmoynahan6211
    @stephenmoynahan6211 4 роки тому

    Good stuff.

  • @chenlecong9938
    @chenlecong9938 4 роки тому

    But you can’t assume (2) to be true and in turn use that assumption to prove (1).....

    • @HamblinMath
      @HamblinMath  4 роки тому +6

      No, that's exactly what you do. We're not saying that (1) or (2) are *always* true. We're saying that *if* (1) is true, *then* (2) is true, and vice versa.