Prove or disprove that this set is a base

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












Let $Bs=e_1,e_2,...,e_n$ is standard base $mathbb R^n$. If $x_1,x_2,...,x_n$ vectors from space $R^n$ such that $e_iin L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$, $i=1:n$ then set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ is base of space $mathbb R^n$?.



My answer is yes. Now we know that $alpha_1e_1+alpha_2e_2,...,alpha _ne_n=0_v$ because $e_1,e_2,...,e_n$ linear independent then $alpha_1=alpha_2=...=alpha _n=0$ know we know that $e_iin L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$, $i=1:n$ so then,$alpha_1^`x_1+alpha_2^`x_2,...,alpha _n^`x_n=e_1$, $beta_1x_1+beta_2x_2,...,beta _nx_n=e_2,...,gamma_1x_1+gamma_2x_2,...,gamma _nx_n=e_n$ then $x_1(alpha_1alpha_1^`+alpha_2beta_1...alpha _ngamma _1)+x_2(alpha_2alpha_2^`+alpha_2beta_2...alpha _ngamma _2)+...+x_n(alpha_1alpha _n^`+alpha_2beta _n...alpha _ngamma _n)=0_v$, from here $0x_1+0x_2+..0x_n=0v$ so $x_1,x_2,...x_n $is base. Is this ok?







share|cite|improve this question
























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $Bs=e_1,e_2,...,e_n$ is standard base $mathbb R^n$. If $x_1,x_2,...,x_n$ vectors from space $R^n$ such that $e_iin L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$, $i=1:n$ then set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ is base of space $mathbb R^n$?.



    My answer is yes. Now we know that $alpha_1e_1+alpha_2e_2,...,alpha _ne_n=0_v$ because $e_1,e_2,...,e_n$ linear independent then $alpha_1=alpha_2=...=alpha _n=0$ know we know that $e_iin L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$, $i=1:n$ so then,$alpha_1^`x_1+alpha_2^`x_2,...,alpha _n^`x_n=e_1$, $beta_1x_1+beta_2x_2,...,beta _nx_n=e_2,...,gamma_1x_1+gamma_2x_2,...,gamma _nx_n=e_n$ then $x_1(alpha_1alpha_1^`+alpha_2beta_1...alpha _ngamma _1)+x_2(alpha_2alpha_2^`+alpha_2beta_2...alpha _ngamma _2)+...+x_n(alpha_1alpha _n^`+alpha_2beta _n...alpha _ngamma _n)=0_v$, from here $0x_1+0x_2+..0x_n=0v$ so $x_1,x_2,...x_n $is base. Is this ok?







    share|cite|improve this question






















      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $Bs=e_1,e_2,...,e_n$ is standard base $mathbb R^n$. If $x_1,x_2,...,x_n$ vectors from space $R^n$ such that $e_iin L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$, $i=1:n$ then set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ is base of space $mathbb R^n$?.



      My answer is yes. Now we know that $alpha_1e_1+alpha_2e_2,...,alpha _ne_n=0_v$ because $e_1,e_2,...,e_n$ linear independent then $alpha_1=alpha_2=...=alpha _n=0$ know we know that $e_iin L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$, $i=1:n$ so then,$alpha_1^`x_1+alpha_2^`x_2,...,alpha _n^`x_n=e_1$, $beta_1x_1+beta_2x_2,...,beta _nx_n=e_2,...,gamma_1x_1+gamma_2x_2,...,gamma _nx_n=e_n$ then $x_1(alpha_1alpha_1^`+alpha_2beta_1...alpha _ngamma _1)+x_2(alpha_2alpha_2^`+alpha_2beta_2...alpha _ngamma _2)+...+x_n(alpha_1alpha _n^`+alpha_2beta _n...alpha _ngamma _n)=0_v$, from here $0x_1+0x_2+..0x_n=0v$ so $x_1,x_2,...x_n $is base. Is this ok?







      share|cite|improve this question












      Let $Bs=e_1,e_2,...,e_n$ is standard base $mathbb R^n$. If $x_1,x_2,...,x_n$ vectors from space $R^n$ such that $e_iin L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$, $i=1:n$ then set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ is base of space $mathbb R^n$?.



      My answer is yes. Now we know that $alpha_1e_1+alpha_2e_2,...,alpha _ne_n=0_v$ because $e_1,e_2,...,e_n$ linear independent then $alpha_1=alpha_2=...=alpha _n=0$ know we know that $e_iin L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$, $i=1:n$ so then,$alpha_1^`x_1+alpha_2^`x_2,...,alpha _n^`x_n=e_1$, $beta_1x_1+beta_2x_2,...,beta _nx_n=e_2,...,gamma_1x_1+gamma_2x_2,...,gamma _nx_n=e_n$ then $x_1(alpha_1alpha_1^`+alpha_2beta_1...alpha _ngamma _1)+x_2(alpha_2alpha_2^`+alpha_2beta_2...alpha _ngamma _2)+...+x_n(alpha_1alpha _n^`+alpha_2beta _n...alpha _ngamma _n)=0_v$, from here $0x_1+0x_2+..0x_n=0v$ so $x_1,x_2,...x_n $is base. Is this ok?









      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Aug 23 at 9:08









      Marko Škorić

      3037




      3037




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          It's a bit hard to follow what you're doing.



          The set is a basis for $mathbbR^n$ if it spans $mathbbR^n$ and if it is linearly independent.



          But because we know that the dimension of $mathbbR^n$ is $n$ and the set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ contains exactly $n$ elements, it suffices to show either of these properties since:



          • $n$ linearly independent vectors necessarily span $mathbbR^n$ or, the other way around;

          • a spanning set of $n$ elements for $mathbbR^n$ is necessarily linearly independent.


          Now, an arbitrary $x in mathbbR^n$ can be written as $alpha_1e_1 + cdots + alpha_ne_n$ but all of the $e_i$'s can be written as linear combinations of the $x_i$'s, so substitute and rearrange a bit - it's only a matter of writing it down carefully now.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Just a small warning. This assumes the OP is already familiar with the dimension theorem for vector spaces, which is probably a safe bet, but for future readers, a small warning might help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_theorem_for_vector_spaces
            – 5xum
            Aug 23 at 9:32











          • I know and I was wondering whether to mention that explicitly; but now this comment does the job - thanks!
            – StackTD
            Aug 23 at 9:32










          • can you write how would you prove?
            – Marko Å korić
            Aug 23 at 10:03










          • @MarkoÅ korić Do you understand the last paragraph; have you tried writing it out?
            – StackTD
            Aug 23 at 10:48

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Your proof is a little confusing. What you need to prove are two things:



          1:



          You need to prove that every $xinmathbb R^n$ can be written as a linear combination of $x_1,dots, x_n$ (you sort of almost did this part, but you should make it clear).



          2:



          You need to prove that if $alpha_1 x_1 + cdots + alpha_n x_n = 0$, then $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$ (you didn't do this part yet).




          I suggest you rewrite your proof to make it clear which of the two facts is being proven at which point.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            0
            down vote













            I write that every $ei, i:n$ can write as linear combination, after that I want to see if $x1,x2,...xn$ is linear independent, maybe its confusing why i write $0x1+0x2...+0xn=0$ because first I write $alpha1=alpha2=...=alpha n=0$ so when you multiply with $alpha1,alpha2,...alpha n$ in brackets you have 0, so they are linear independent.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















              Your Answer




              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: false,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2891892%2fprove-or-disprove-that-this-set-is-a-base%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted










              It's a bit hard to follow what you're doing.



              The set is a basis for $mathbbR^n$ if it spans $mathbbR^n$ and if it is linearly independent.



              But because we know that the dimension of $mathbbR^n$ is $n$ and the set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ contains exactly $n$ elements, it suffices to show either of these properties since:



              • $n$ linearly independent vectors necessarily span $mathbbR^n$ or, the other way around;

              • a spanning set of $n$ elements for $mathbbR^n$ is necessarily linearly independent.


              Now, an arbitrary $x in mathbbR^n$ can be written as $alpha_1e_1 + cdots + alpha_ne_n$ but all of the $e_i$'s can be written as linear combinations of the $x_i$'s, so substitute and rearrange a bit - it's only a matter of writing it down carefully now.






              share|cite|improve this answer




















              • Just a small warning. This assumes the OP is already familiar with the dimension theorem for vector spaces, which is probably a safe bet, but for future readers, a small warning might help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_theorem_for_vector_spaces
                – 5xum
                Aug 23 at 9:32











              • I know and I was wondering whether to mention that explicitly; but now this comment does the job - thanks!
                – StackTD
                Aug 23 at 9:32










              • can you write how would you prove?
                – Marko Å korić
                Aug 23 at 10:03










              • @MarkoÅ korić Do you understand the last paragraph; have you tried writing it out?
                – StackTD
                Aug 23 at 10:48














              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted










              It's a bit hard to follow what you're doing.



              The set is a basis for $mathbbR^n$ if it spans $mathbbR^n$ and if it is linearly independent.



              But because we know that the dimension of $mathbbR^n$ is $n$ and the set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ contains exactly $n$ elements, it suffices to show either of these properties since:



              • $n$ linearly independent vectors necessarily span $mathbbR^n$ or, the other way around;

              • a spanning set of $n$ elements for $mathbbR^n$ is necessarily linearly independent.


              Now, an arbitrary $x in mathbbR^n$ can be written as $alpha_1e_1 + cdots + alpha_ne_n$ but all of the $e_i$'s can be written as linear combinations of the $x_i$'s, so substitute and rearrange a bit - it's only a matter of writing it down carefully now.






              share|cite|improve this answer




















              • Just a small warning. This assumes the OP is already familiar with the dimension theorem for vector spaces, which is probably a safe bet, but for future readers, a small warning might help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_theorem_for_vector_spaces
                – 5xum
                Aug 23 at 9:32











              • I know and I was wondering whether to mention that explicitly; but now this comment does the job - thanks!
                – StackTD
                Aug 23 at 9:32










              • can you write how would you prove?
                – Marko Å korić
                Aug 23 at 10:03










              • @MarkoÅ korić Do you understand the last paragraph; have you tried writing it out?
                – StackTD
                Aug 23 at 10:48












              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted







              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted






              It's a bit hard to follow what you're doing.



              The set is a basis for $mathbbR^n$ if it spans $mathbbR^n$ and if it is linearly independent.



              But because we know that the dimension of $mathbbR^n$ is $n$ and the set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ contains exactly $n$ elements, it suffices to show either of these properties since:



              • $n$ linearly independent vectors necessarily span $mathbbR^n$ or, the other way around;

              • a spanning set of $n$ elements for $mathbbR^n$ is necessarily linearly independent.


              Now, an arbitrary $x in mathbbR^n$ can be written as $alpha_1e_1 + cdots + alpha_ne_n$ but all of the $e_i$'s can be written as linear combinations of the $x_i$'s, so substitute and rearrange a bit - it's only a matter of writing it down carefully now.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              It's a bit hard to follow what you're doing.



              The set is a basis for $mathbbR^n$ if it spans $mathbbR^n$ and if it is linearly independent.



              But because we know that the dimension of $mathbbR^n$ is $n$ and the set $x_1,x_2,...x_n$ contains exactly $n$ elements, it suffices to show either of these properties since:



              • $n$ linearly independent vectors necessarily span $mathbbR^n$ or, the other way around;

              • a spanning set of $n$ elements for $mathbbR^n$ is necessarily linearly independent.


              Now, an arbitrary $x in mathbbR^n$ can be written as $alpha_1e_1 + cdots + alpha_ne_n$ but all of the $e_i$'s can be written as linear combinations of the $x_i$'s, so substitute and rearrange a bit - it's only a matter of writing it down carefully now.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Aug 23 at 9:19









              StackTD

              20.4k1544




              20.4k1544











              • Just a small warning. This assumes the OP is already familiar with the dimension theorem for vector spaces, which is probably a safe bet, but for future readers, a small warning might help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_theorem_for_vector_spaces
                – 5xum
                Aug 23 at 9:32











              • I know and I was wondering whether to mention that explicitly; but now this comment does the job - thanks!
                – StackTD
                Aug 23 at 9:32










              • can you write how would you prove?
                – Marko Å korić
                Aug 23 at 10:03










              • @MarkoÅ korić Do you understand the last paragraph; have you tried writing it out?
                – StackTD
                Aug 23 at 10:48
















              • Just a small warning. This assumes the OP is already familiar with the dimension theorem for vector spaces, which is probably a safe bet, but for future readers, a small warning might help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_theorem_for_vector_spaces
                – 5xum
                Aug 23 at 9:32











              • I know and I was wondering whether to mention that explicitly; but now this comment does the job - thanks!
                – StackTD
                Aug 23 at 9:32










              • can you write how would you prove?
                – Marko Å korić
                Aug 23 at 10:03










              • @MarkoÅ korić Do you understand the last paragraph; have you tried writing it out?
                – StackTD
                Aug 23 at 10:48















              Just a small warning. This assumes the OP is already familiar with the dimension theorem for vector spaces, which is probably a safe bet, but for future readers, a small warning might help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_theorem_for_vector_spaces
              – 5xum
              Aug 23 at 9:32





              Just a small warning. This assumes the OP is already familiar with the dimension theorem for vector spaces, which is probably a safe bet, but for future readers, a small warning might help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_theorem_for_vector_spaces
              – 5xum
              Aug 23 at 9:32













              I know and I was wondering whether to mention that explicitly; but now this comment does the job - thanks!
              – StackTD
              Aug 23 at 9:32




              I know and I was wondering whether to mention that explicitly; but now this comment does the job - thanks!
              – StackTD
              Aug 23 at 9:32












              can you write how would you prove?
              – Marko Å korić
              Aug 23 at 10:03




              can you write how would you prove?
              – Marko Å korić
              Aug 23 at 10:03












              @MarkoŠkorić Do you understand the last paragraph; have you tried writing it out?
              – StackTD
              Aug 23 at 10:48




              @MarkoŠkorić Do you understand the last paragraph; have you tried writing it out?
              – StackTD
              Aug 23 at 10:48










              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Your proof is a little confusing. What you need to prove are two things:



              1:



              You need to prove that every $xinmathbb R^n$ can be written as a linear combination of $x_1,dots, x_n$ (you sort of almost did this part, but you should make it clear).



              2:



              You need to prove that if $alpha_1 x_1 + cdots + alpha_n x_n = 0$, then $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$ (you didn't do this part yet).




              I suggest you rewrite your proof to make it clear which of the two facts is being proven at which point.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                Your proof is a little confusing. What you need to prove are two things:



                1:



                You need to prove that every $xinmathbb R^n$ can be written as a linear combination of $x_1,dots, x_n$ (you sort of almost did this part, but you should make it clear).



                2:



                You need to prove that if $alpha_1 x_1 + cdots + alpha_n x_n = 0$, then $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$ (you didn't do this part yet).




                I suggest you rewrite your proof to make it clear which of the two facts is being proven at which point.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  Your proof is a little confusing. What you need to prove are two things:



                  1:



                  You need to prove that every $xinmathbb R^n$ can be written as a linear combination of $x_1,dots, x_n$ (you sort of almost did this part, but you should make it clear).



                  2:



                  You need to prove that if $alpha_1 x_1 + cdots + alpha_n x_n = 0$, then $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$ (you didn't do this part yet).




                  I suggest you rewrite your proof to make it clear which of the two facts is being proven at which point.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Your proof is a little confusing. What you need to prove are two things:



                  1:



                  You need to prove that every $xinmathbb R^n$ can be written as a linear combination of $x_1,dots, x_n$ (you sort of almost did this part, but you should make it clear).



                  2:



                  You need to prove that if $alpha_1 x_1 + cdots + alpha_n x_n = 0$, then $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$ (you didn't do this part yet).




                  I suggest you rewrite your proof to make it clear which of the two facts is being proven at which point.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 23 at 9:13









                  5xum

                  82.5k383147




                  82.5k383147




















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      I write that every $ei, i:n$ can write as linear combination, after that I want to see if $x1,x2,...xn$ is linear independent, maybe its confusing why i write $0x1+0x2...+0xn=0$ because first I write $alpha1=alpha2=...=alpha n=0$ so when you multiply with $alpha1,alpha2,...alpha n$ in brackets you have 0, so they are linear independent.






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        I write that every $ei, i:n$ can write as linear combination, after that I want to see if $x1,x2,...xn$ is linear independent, maybe its confusing why i write $0x1+0x2...+0xn=0$ because first I write $alpha1=alpha2=...=alpha n=0$ so when you multiply with $alpha1,alpha2,...alpha n$ in brackets you have 0, so they are linear independent.






                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote









                          I write that every $ei, i:n$ can write as linear combination, after that I want to see if $x1,x2,...xn$ is linear independent, maybe its confusing why i write $0x1+0x2...+0xn=0$ because first I write $alpha1=alpha2=...=alpha n=0$ so when you multiply with $alpha1,alpha2,...alpha n$ in brackets you have 0, so they are linear independent.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          I write that every $ei, i:n$ can write as linear combination, after that I want to see if $x1,x2,...xn$ is linear independent, maybe its confusing why i write $0x1+0x2...+0xn=0$ because first I write $alpha1=alpha2=...=alpha n=0$ so when you multiply with $alpha1,alpha2,...alpha n$ in brackets you have 0, so they are linear independent.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Aug 23 at 9:25









                          Marko Škorić

                          3037




                          3037



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2891892%2fprove-or-disprove-that-this-set-is-a-base%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              這個網誌中的熱門文章

                              Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

                              Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

                              Carbon dioxide