Proof that any linear system cannot have exactly 2 solutions.

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











up vote
15
down vote

favorite
6












How would you go about proving that for any system of linear equations (whether all are homogenous or not) can only have either (if this is true):



  • One solution

  • Infinitely many solutions

  • No solutions

I found this a bit difficult to prove (even though its a very fundamental thing about any linear equation). The intuitive geometric explanation is that a line can only intersect at one point, and if it intersects at a later point, it can't be a linear equation, but I don't think this is a convincing proof.



I thought of if you assume that there are two (or more, but I picked two) solutions for some linear system, then for the points in between



Solution Set 1: X1, X2....., Xn
Solution Set 2: X1, X2....., Xn



Then (I think), the points between S1 and S2, must be infinitely many points (and thus infinitely many solutions) such that these points can also satisfy the linear system, which would mean the system has 2 infinite solutions.



However, I don't think this is rigorous enough and nor do I understand completely why its true. Can anyone help in explaining (correcting) and elaborating on the intuition and proof of this?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 5




    "Infinite solutions" is quite incorrect. It can have infinitely many solutions. But in correct use of mathematical terminology, "infinite solutions" means solutions, each one of which is infinite. If you have six solutions, and each is infinite, then those are infinite solutions but not infinitely many solutions. $qquad$
    – Michael Hardy
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:09






  • 1




    Why do you find the visual proof not convincing?
    – corsiKa
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:53






  • 4




    It's worth pointing out that this question has an implicit assumption that the underlying field is infinite. Over a finite field, the assertion is not necessarily true (and we cannot have infinitely many solutions). E.g. over $GF(2)$, the equation $pmatrix1&1\ 0&0x=0$ has exactly two solutions $x=pmatrix0\ 0$ and $x=pmatrix1\ 1$. See also 6005's answer below.
    – user1551
    Sep 17 '15 at 11:35















up vote
15
down vote

favorite
6












How would you go about proving that for any system of linear equations (whether all are homogenous or not) can only have either (if this is true):



  • One solution

  • Infinitely many solutions

  • No solutions

I found this a bit difficult to prove (even though its a very fundamental thing about any linear equation). The intuitive geometric explanation is that a line can only intersect at one point, and if it intersects at a later point, it can't be a linear equation, but I don't think this is a convincing proof.



I thought of if you assume that there are two (or more, but I picked two) solutions for some linear system, then for the points in between



Solution Set 1: X1, X2....., Xn
Solution Set 2: X1, X2....., Xn



Then (I think), the points between S1 and S2, must be infinitely many points (and thus infinitely many solutions) such that these points can also satisfy the linear system, which would mean the system has 2 infinite solutions.



However, I don't think this is rigorous enough and nor do I understand completely why its true. Can anyone help in explaining (correcting) and elaborating on the intuition and proof of this?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 5




    "Infinite solutions" is quite incorrect. It can have infinitely many solutions. But in correct use of mathematical terminology, "infinite solutions" means solutions, each one of which is infinite. If you have six solutions, and each is infinite, then those are infinite solutions but not infinitely many solutions. $qquad$
    – Michael Hardy
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:09






  • 1




    Why do you find the visual proof not convincing?
    – corsiKa
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:53






  • 4




    It's worth pointing out that this question has an implicit assumption that the underlying field is infinite. Over a finite field, the assertion is not necessarily true (and we cannot have infinitely many solutions). E.g. over $GF(2)$, the equation $pmatrix1&1\ 0&0x=0$ has exactly two solutions $x=pmatrix0\ 0$ and $x=pmatrix1\ 1$. See also 6005's answer below.
    – user1551
    Sep 17 '15 at 11:35













up vote
15
down vote

favorite
6









up vote
15
down vote

favorite
6






6





How would you go about proving that for any system of linear equations (whether all are homogenous or not) can only have either (if this is true):



  • One solution

  • Infinitely many solutions

  • No solutions

I found this a bit difficult to prove (even though its a very fundamental thing about any linear equation). The intuitive geometric explanation is that a line can only intersect at one point, and if it intersects at a later point, it can't be a linear equation, but I don't think this is a convincing proof.



I thought of if you assume that there are two (or more, but I picked two) solutions for some linear system, then for the points in between



Solution Set 1: X1, X2....., Xn
Solution Set 2: X1, X2....., Xn



Then (I think), the points between S1 and S2, must be infinitely many points (and thus infinitely many solutions) such that these points can also satisfy the linear system, which would mean the system has 2 infinite solutions.



However, I don't think this is rigorous enough and nor do I understand completely why its true. Can anyone help in explaining (correcting) and elaborating on the intuition and proof of this?










share|cite|improve this question















How would you go about proving that for any system of linear equations (whether all are homogenous or not) can only have either (if this is true):



  • One solution

  • Infinitely many solutions

  • No solutions

I found this a bit difficult to prove (even though its a very fundamental thing about any linear equation). The intuitive geometric explanation is that a line can only intersect at one point, and if it intersects at a later point, it can't be a linear equation, but I don't think this is a convincing proof.



I thought of if you assume that there are two (or more, but I picked two) solutions for some linear system, then for the points in between



Solution Set 1: X1, X2....., Xn
Solution Set 2: X1, X2....., Xn



Then (I think), the points between S1 and S2, must be infinitely many points (and thus infinitely many solutions) such that these points can also satisfy the linear system, which would mean the system has 2 infinite solutions.



However, I don't think this is rigorous enough and nor do I understand completely why its true. Can anyone help in explaining (correcting) and elaborating on the intuition and proof of this?







linear-algebra systems-of-equations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 17 '15 at 6:37









Martin Sleziak

43.7k6113260




43.7k6113260










asked Sep 16 '15 at 21:40









q.Then

2,2271621




2,2271621







  • 5




    "Infinite solutions" is quite incorrect. It can have infinitely many solutions. But in correct use of mathematical terminology, "infinite solutions" means solutions, each one of which is infinite. If you have six solutions, and each is infinite, then those are infinite solutions but not infinitely many solutions. $qquad$
    – Michael Hardy
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:09






  • 1




    Why do you find the visual proof not convincing?
    – corsiKa
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:53






  • 4




    It's worth pointing out that this question has an implicit assumption that the underlying field is infinite. Over a finite field, the assertion is not necessarily true (and we cannot have infinitely many solutions). E.g. over $GF(2)$, the equation $pmatrix1&1\ 0&0x=0$ has exactly two solutions $x=pmatrix0\ 0$ and $x=pmatrix1\ 1$. See also 6005's answer below.
    – user1551
    Sep 17 '15 at 11:35













  • 5




    "Infinite solutions" is quite incorrect. It can have infinitely many solutions. But in correct use of mathematical terminology, "infinite solutions" means solutions, each one of which is infinite. If you have six solutions, and each is infinite, then those are infinite solutions but not infinitely many solutions. $qquad$
    – Michael Hardy
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:09






  • 1




    Why do you find the visual proof not convincing?
    – corsiKa
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:53






  • 4




    It's worth pointing out that this question has an implicit assumption that the underlying field is infinite. Over a finite field, the assertion is not necessarily true (and we cannot have infinitely many solutions). E.g. over $GF(2)$, the equation $pmatrix1&1\ 0&0x=0$ has exactly two solutions $x=pmatrix0\ 0$ and $x=pmatrix1\ 1$. See also 6005's answer below.
    – user1551
    Sep 17 '15 at 11:35








5




5




"Infinite solutions" is quite incorrect. It can have infinitely many solutions. But in correct use of mathematical terminology, "infinite solutions" means solutions, each one of which is infinite. If you have six solutions, and each is infinite, then those are infinite solutions but not infinitely many solutions. $qquad$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 16 '15 at 22:09




"Infinite solutions" is quite incorrect. It can have infinitely many solutions. But in correct use of mathematical terminology, "infinite solutions" means solutions, each one of which is infinite. If you have six solutions, and each is infinite, then those are infinite solutions but not infinitely many solutions. $qquad$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 16 '15 at 22:09




1




1




Why do you find the visual proof not convincing?
– corsiKa
Sep 16 '15 at 22:53




Why do you find the visual proof not convincing?
– corsiKa
Sep 16 '15 at 22:53




4




4




It's worth pointing out that this question has an implicit assumption that the underlying field is infinite. Over a finite field, the assertion is not necessarily true (and we cannot have infinitely many solutions). E.g. over $GF(2)$, the equation $pmatrix1&1\ 0&0x=0$ has exactly two solutions $x=pmatrix0\ 0$ and $x=pmatrix1\ 1$. See also 6005's answer below.
– user1551
Sep 17 '15 at 11:35





It's worth pointing out that this question has an implicit assumption that the underlying field is infinite. Over a finite field, the assertion is not necessarily true (and we cannot have infinitely many solutions). E.g. over $GF(2)$, the equation $pmatrix1&1\ 0&0x=0$ has exactly two solutions $x=pmatrix0\ 0$ and $x=pmatrix1\ 1$. See also 6005's answer below.
– user1551
Sep 17 '15 at 11:35











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
11
down vote



accepted










Suppose that $vec v$ and $vec w$ are distinct solutions for the system $Avec x = vec b$ so that $A vec v = A vec w = vec b$. Then $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ must be distinct from both $vec v$ and $vec w$ and must also solve the system since:
$$
A(tfrac12(vec v + vec w)) = tfrac12(Avec v + Avec w) = tfrac12(vec b + vec b) = vec b
$$
We can then apply the same argument to $vec v$ and $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ in order to get infinitely many distinct solutions.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 4




    Or pick any $lambda in (0,1)$ and consider $lambda vecv + (1 - lambda) vecw$. Then you get continuum-many solutions right off the bat.
    – 6005
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:10






  • 1




    You can even choose any real number for $lambda$.
    – Aurey
    Sep 16 '15 at 23:30










  • Looking over this again, great way of explaining your argument (deriving infinitely many solutions)
    – q.Then
    Sep 17 '15 at 22:29

















up vote
14
down vote













Your second proof sounds fine. Let's imagine that the system of equations is written as $Ax = b$, where $A$ is the matrix of coefficients, $x$ is the vector of variables we are solving for, and $b$ are the constants. Now assume we have two distinct solutions $x_1$ and $x_2$. Then $rx_1+sx_2$ is also a solution, if $r+s=1$ - just plug it in and use linearity of matrix multiplication.



$$A(rx_1+sx_2) = A(rx_1)+A(sx_2) = rA(x_1)+sA(x_2) = (r+s)b = b$$



We thus have an infinite number of solutions. If you don't like matrices, you can easily just write out each term in the system of equations.



If you want to get some intuition for what is happening, the linear combination $rx_1+sx_2$, where $r+s=1$, is a line that connects the two points. When $r$ is 1 and $s$ is 0, we get point $x_1$. When $s$ is 1 and $r$ is 0, we get point $x_2$. Other combinations of $r$ and $s$ give other points.



You need to be more careful with your first argument, though. In general, when graphing systems of $n$ equations in $n$ unknowns, the equations are not lines, but $(n-1)$-dimensional planes in $n$-dimensional space. So for a system of three equations and three unknowns, for example, we have three planes in three dimensional space. Unless the planes are parallel, the intersection of two planes is a line, and the intersection of a line with a plane is a point. That's the one solution case. If two planes are parallel, they never intersect - no solutions. And finally, if the line/plane overlaps with another line/plane, we get an infinite number of solutions. That's the intuition behind this theorem.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Thanks for the answer, I'm sure other answers were great as well, but I think you explained it the best (at least the best for me)
    – q.Then
    Sep 17 '15 at 2:55


















up vote
12
down vote













We can represent a linear system in matrix notation as:$Avec x=vec v$. Now suppose that we have $Avec x=vec v$ and $Avec y=vec v$ with $vec x ne vec y$, for $a,b$ with $a+b=1$ we have, by linearity: $A(avec x + bvec y)=aAvec x +b A vec y=vec v$, so we have infinitely many solutions.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    7
    down vote













    In general, in a vector space over a general field $F$, the number of solutions $vecx$ to the system
    $$
    A vecx = vecw
    $$
    is either $0$ or $|ker A|$. (Because if $vecx_0$ satisfies the equation, then the set of solutions is $vecx_0 + ker A$.)
    And $|ker A| = |F|^k$ for some $k ge 0$.



    Assuming the base field $F$ has infinite cardinality $alpha$ and the vector space is finite-dimensional, it follows that the number of solutions is $0, 1,$ or $alpha$ (since $|F|^0 = 1$ and $|F|^k = alpha$ for $k ge 1$).






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • @user1551 yes, thank you. I corrected that and two other minor typos.
      – 6005
      Sep 17 '15 at 15:20










    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%2f1438658%2fproof-that-any-linear-system-cannot-have-exactly-2-solutions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    11
    down vote



    accepted










    Suppose that $vec v$ and $vec w$ are distinct solutions for the system $Avec x = vec b$ so that $A vec v = A vec w = vec b$. Then $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ must be distinct from both $vec v$ and $vec w$ and must also solve the system since:
    $$
    A(tfrac12(vec v + vec w)) = tfrac12(Avec v + Avec w) = tfrac12(vec b + vec b) = vec b
    $$
    We can then apply the same argument to $vec v$ and $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ in order to get infinitely many distinct solutions.






    share|cite|improve this answer
















    • 4




      Or pick any $lambda in (0,1)$ and consider $lambda vecv + (1 - lambda) vecw$. Then you get continuum-many solutions right off the bat.
      – 6005
      Sep 16 '15 at 22:10






    • 1




      You can even choose any real number for $lambda$.
      – Aurey
      Sep 16 '15 at 23:30










    • Looking over this again, great way of explaining your argument (deriving infinitely many solutions)
      – q.Then
      Sep 17 '15 at 22:29














    up vote
    11
    down vote



    accepted










    Suppose that $vec v$ and $vec w$ are distinct solutions for the system $Avec x = vec b$ so that $A vec v = A vec w = vec b$. Then $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ must be distinct from both $vec v$ and $vec w$ and must also solve the system since:
    $$
    A(tfrac12(vec v + vec w)) = tfrac12(Avec v + Avec w) = tfrac12(vec b + vec b) = vec b
    $$
    We can then apply the same argument to $vec v$ and $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ in order to get infinitely many distinct solutions.






    share|cite|improve this answer
















    • 4




      Or pick any $lambda in (0,1)$ and consider $lambda vecv + (1 - lambda) vecw$. Then you get continuum-many solutions right off the bat.
      – 6005
      Sep 16 '15 at 22:10






    • 1




      You can even choose any real number for $lambda$.
      – Aurey
      Sep 16 '15 at 23:30










    • Looking over this again, great way of explaining your argument (deriving infinitely many solutions)
      – q.Then
      Sep 17 '15 at 22:29












    up vote
    11
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    11
    down vote



    accepted






    Suppose that $vec v$ and $vec w$ are distinct solutions for the system $Avec x = vec b$ so that $A vec v = A vec w = vec b$. Then $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ must be distinct from both $vec v$ and $vec w$ and must also solve the system since:
    $$
    A(tfrac12(vec v + vec w)) = tfrac12(Avec v + Avec w) = tfrac12(vec b + vec b) = vec b
    $$
    We can then apply the same argument to $vec v$ and $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ in order to get infinitely many distinct solutions.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Suppose that $vec v$ and $vec w$ are distinct solutions for the system $Avec x = vec b$ so that $A vec v = A vec w = vec b$. Then $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ must be distinct from both $vec v$ and $vec w$ and must also solve the system since:
    $$
    A(tfrac12(vec v + vec w)) = tfrac12(Avec v + Avec w) = tfrac12(vec b + vec b) = vec b
    $$
    We can then apply the same argument to $vec v$ and $frac12(vec v + vec w)$ in order to get infinitely many distinct solutions.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Sep 16 '15 at 21:54









    Adriano

    35.9k32870




    35.9k32870







    • 4




      Or pick any $lambda in (0,1)$ and consider $lambda vecv + (1 - lambda) vecw$. Then you get continuum-many solutions right off the bat.
      – 6005
      Sep 16 '15 at 22:10






    • 1




      You can even choose any real number for $lambda$.
      – Aurey
      Sep 16 '15 at 23:30










    • Looking over this again, great way of explaining your argument (deriving infinitely many solutions)
      – q.Then
      Sep 17 '15 at 22:29












    • 4




      Or pick any $lambda in (0,1)$ and consider $lambda vecv + (1 - lambda) vecw$. Then you get continuum-many solutions right off the bat.
      – 6005
      Sep 16 '15 at 22:10






    • 1




      You can even choose any real number for $lambda$.
      – Aurey
      Sep 16 '15 at 23:30










    • Looking over this again, great way of explaining your argument (deriving infinitely many solutions)
      – q.Then
      Sep 17 '15 at 22:29







    4




    4




    Or pick any $lambda in (0,1)$ and consider $lambda vecv + (1 - lambda) vecw$. Then you get continuum-many solutions right off the bat.
    – 6005
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:10




    Or pick any $lambda in (0,1)$ and consider $lambda vecv + (1 - lambda) vecw$. Then you get continuum-many solutions right off the bat.
    – 6005
    Sep 16 '15 at 22:10




    1




    1




    You can even choose any real number for $lambda$.
    – Aurey
    Sep 16 '15 at 23:30




    You can even choose any real number for $lambda$.
    – Aurey
    Sep 16 '15 at 23:30












    Looking over this again, great way of explaining your argument (deriving infinitely many solutions)
    – q.Then
    Sep 17 '15 at 22:29




    Looking over this again, great way of explaining your argument (deriving infinitely many solutions)
    – q.Then
    Sep 17 '15 at 22:29










    up vote
    14
    down vote













    Your second proof sounds fine. Let's imagine that the system of equations is written as $Ax = b$, where $A$ is the matrix of coefficients, $x$ is the vector of variables we are solving for, and $b$ are the constants. Now assume we have two distinct solutions $x_1$ and $x_2$. Then $rx_1+sx_2$ is also a solution, if $r+s=1$ - just plug it in and use linearity of matrix multiplication.



    $$A(rx_1+sx_2) = A(rx_1)+A(sx_2) = rA(x_1)+sA(x_2) = (r+s)b = b$$



    We thus have an infinite number of solutions. If you don't like matrices, you can easily just write out each term in the system of equations.



    If you want to get some intuition for what is happening, the linear combination $rx_1+sx_2$, where $r+s=1$, is a line that connects the two points. When $r$ is 1 and $s$ is 0, we get point $x_1$. When $s$ is 1 and $r$ is 0, we get point $x_2$. Other combinations of $r$ and $s$ give other points.



    You need to be more careful with your first argument, though. In general, when graphing systems of $n$ equations in $n$ unknowns, the equations are not lines, but $(n-1)$-dimensional planes in $n$-dimensional space. So for a system of three equations and three unknowns, for example, we have three planes in three dimensional space. Unless the planes are parallel, the intersection of two planes is a line, and the intersection of a line with a plane is a point. That's the one solution case. If two planes are parallel, they never intersect - no solutions. And finally, if the line/plane overlaps with another line/plane, we get an infinite number of solutions. That's the intuition behind this theorem.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • Thanks for the answer, I'm sure other answers were great as well, but I think you explained it the best (at least the best for me)
      – q.Then
      Sep 17 '15 at 2:55















    up vote
    14
    down vote













    Your second proof sounds fine. Let's imagine that the system of equations is written as $Ax = b$, where $A$ is the matrix of coefficients, $x$ is the vector of variables we are solving for, and $b$ are the constants. Now assume we have two distinct solutions $x_1$ and $x_2$. Then $rx_1+sx_2$ is also a solution, if $r+s=1$ - just plug it in and use linearity of matrix multiplication.



    $$A(rx_1+sx_2) = A(rx_1)+A(sx_2) = rA(x_1)+sA(x_2) = (r+s)b = b$$



    We thus have an infinite number of solutions. If you don't like matrices, you can easily just write out each term in the system of equations.



    If you want to get some intuition for what is happening, the linear combination $rx_1+sx_2$, where $r+s=1$, is a line that connects the two points. When $r$ is 1 and $s$ is 0, we get point $x_1$. When $s$ is 1 and $r$ is 0, we get point $x_2$. Other combinations of $r$ and $s$ give other points.



    You need to be more careful with your first argument, though. In general, when graphing systems of $n$ equations in $n$ unknowns, the equations are not lines, but $(n-1)$-dimensional planes in $n$-dimensional space. So for a system of three equations and three unknowns, for example, we have three planes in three dimensional space. Unless the planes are parallel, the intersection of two planes is a line, and the intersection of a line with a plane is a point. That's the one solution case. If two planes are parallel, they never intersect - no solutions. And finally, if the line/plane overlaps with another line/plane, we get an infinite number of solutions. That's the intuition behind this theorem.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • Thanks for the answer, I'm sure other answers were great as well, but I think you explained it the best (at least the best for me)
      – q.Then
      Sep 17 '15 at 2:55













    up vote
    14
    down vote










    up vote
    14
    down vote









    Your second proof sounds fine. Let's imagine that the system of equations is written as $Ax = b$, where $A$ is the matrix of coefficients, $x$ is the vector of variables we are solving for, and $b$ are the constants. Now assume we have two distinct solutions $x_1$ and $x_2$. Then $rx_1+sx_2$ is also a solution, if $r+s=1$ - just plug it in and use linearity of matrix multiplication.



    $$A(rx_1+sx_2) = A(rx_1)+A(sx_2) = rA(x_1)+sA(x_2) = (r+s)b = b$$



    We thus have an infinite number of solutions. If you don't like matrices, you can easily just write out each term in the system of equations.



    If you want to get some intuition for what is happening, the linear combination $rx_1+sx_2$, where $r+s=1$, is a line that connects the two points. When $r$ is 1 and $s$ is 0, we get point $x_1$. When $s$ is 1 and $r$ is 0, we get point $x_2$. Other combinations of $r$ and $s$ give other points.



    You need to be more careful with your first argument, though. In general, when graphing systems of $n$ equations in $n$ unknowns, the equations are not lines, but $(n-1)$-dimensional planes in $n$-dimensional space. So for a system of three equations and three unknowns, for example, we have three planes in three dimensional space. Unless the planes are parallel, the intersection of two planes is a line, and the intersection of a line with a plane is a point. That's the one solution case. If two planes are parallel, they never intersect - no solutions. And finally, if the line/plane overlaps with another line/plane, we get an infinite number of solutions. That's the intuition behind this theorem.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Your second proof sounds fine. Let's imagine that the system of equations is written as $Ax = b$, where $A$ is the matrix of coefficients, $x$ is the vector of variables we are solving for, and $b$ are the constants. Now assume we have two distinct solutions $x_1$ and $x_2$. Then $rx_1+sx_2$ is also a solution, if $r+s=1$ - just plug it in and use linearity of matrix multiplication.



    $$A(rx_1+sx_2) = A(rx_1)+A(sx_2) = rA(x_1)+sA(x_2) = (r+s)b = b$$



    We thus have an infinite number of solutions. If you don't like matrices, you can easily just write out each term in the system of equations.



    If you want to get some intuition for what is happening, the linear combination $rx_1+sx_2$, where $r+s=1$, is a line that connects the two points. When $r$ is 1 and $s$ is 0, we get point $x_1$. When $s$ is 1 and $r$ is 0, we get point $x_2$. Other combinations of $r$ and $s$ give other points.



    You need to be more careful with your first argument, though. In general, when graphing systems of $n$ equations in $n$ unknowns, the equations are not lines, but $(n-1)$-dimensional planes in $n$-dimensional space. So for a system of three equations and three unknowns, for example, we have three planes in three dimensional space. Unless the planes are parallel, the intersection of two planes is a line, and the intersection of a line with a plane is a point. That's the one solution case. If two planes are parallel, they never intersect - no solutions. And finally, if the line/plane overlaps with another line/plane, we get an infinite number of solutions. That's the intuition behind this theorem.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Sep 16 '15 at 22:07









    Aurey

    1,087515




    1,087515











    • Thanks for the answer, I'm sure other answers were great as well, but I think you explained it the best (at least the best for me)
      – q.Then
      Sep 17 '15 at 2:55

















    • Thanks for the answer, I'm sure other answers were great as well, but I think you explained it the best (at least the best for me)
      – q.Then
      Sep 17 '15 at 2:55
















    Thanks for the answer, I'm sure other answers were great as well, but I think you explained it the best (at least the best for me)
    – q.Then
    Sep 17 '15 at 2:55





    Thanks for the answer, I'm sure other answers were great as well, but I think you explained it the best (at least the best for me)
    – q.Then
    Sep 17 '15 at 2:55











    up vote
    12
    down vote













    We can represent a linear system in matrix notation as:$Avec x=vec v$. Now suppose that we have $Avec x=vec v$ and $Avec y=vec v$ with $vec x ne vec y$, for $a,b$ with $a+b=1$ we have, by linearity: $A(avec x + bvec y)=aAvec x +b A vec y=vec v$, so we have infinitely many solutions.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      12
      down vote













      We can represent a linear system in matrix notation as:$Avec x=vec v$. Now suppose that we have $Avec x=vec v$ and $Avec y=vec v$ with $vec x ne vec y$, for $a,b$ with $a+b=1$ we have, by linearity: $A(avec x + bvec y)=aAvec x +b A vec y=vec v$, so we have infinitely many solutions.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        12
        down vote










        up vote
        12
        down vote









        We can represent a linear system in matrix notation as:$Avec x=vec v$. Now suppose that we have $Avec x=vec v$ and $Avec y=vec v$ with $vec x ne vec y$, for $a,b$ with $a+b=1$ we have, by linearity: $A(avec x + bvec y)=aAvec x +b A vec y=vec v$, so we have infinitely many solutions.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        We can represent a linear system in matrix notation as:$Avec x=vec v$. Now suppose that we have $Avec x=vec v$ and $Avec y=vec v$ with $vec x ne vec y$, for $a,b$ with $a+b=1$ we have, by linearity: $A(avec x + bvec y)=aAvec x +b A vec y=vec v$, so we have infinitely many solutions.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Sep 16 '15 at 21:57









        Emilio Novati

        50.3k43272




        50.3k43272




















            up vote
            7
            down vote













            In general, in a vector space over a general field $F$, the number of solutions $vecx$ to the system
            $$
            A vecx = vecw
            $$
            is either $0$ or $|ker A|$. (Because if $vecx_0$ satisfies the equation, then the set of solutions is $vecx_0 + ker A$.)
            And $|ker A| = |F|^k$ for some $k ge 0$.



            Assuming the base field $F$ has infinite cardinality $alpha$ and the vector space is finite-dimensional, it follows that the number of solutions is $0, 1,$ or $alpha$ (since $|F|^0 = 1$ and $|F|^k = alpha$ for $k ge 1$).






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • @user1551 yes, thank you. I corrected that and two other minor typos.
              – 6005
              Sep 17 '15 at 15:20














            up vote
            7
            down vote













            In general, in a vector space over a general field $F$, the number of solutions $vecx$ to the system
            $$
            A vecx = vecw
            $$
            is either $0$ or $|ker A|$. (Because if $vecx_0$ satisfies the equation, then the set of solutions is $vecx_0 + ker A$.)
            And $|ker A| = |F|^k$ for some $k ge 0$.



            Assuming the base field $F$ has infinite cardinality $alpha$ and the vector space is finite-dimensional, it follows that the number of solutions is $0, 1,$ or $alpha$ (since $|F|^0 = 1$ and $|F|^k = alpha$ for $k ge 1$).






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • @user1551 yes, thank you. I corrected that and two other minor typos.
              – 6005
              Sep 17 '15 at 15:20












            up vote
            7
            down vote










            up vote
            7
            down vote









            In general, in a vector space over a general field $F$, the number of solutions $vecx$ to the system
            $$
            A vecx = vecw
            $$
            is either $0$ or $|ker A|$. (Because if $vecx_0$ satisfies the equation, then the set of solutions is $vecx_0 + ker A$.)
            And $|ker A| = |F|^k$ for some $k ge 0$.



            Assuming the base field $F$ has infinite cardinality $alpha$ and the vector space is finite-dimensional, it follows that the number of solutions is $0, 1,$ or $alpha$ (since $|F|^0 = 1$ and $|F|^k = alpha$ for $k ge 1$).






            share|cite|improve this answer














            In general, in a vector space over a general field $F$, the number of solutions $vecx$ to the system
            $$
            A vecx = vecw
            $$
            is either $0$ or $|ker A|$. (Because if $vecx_0$ satisfies the equation, then the set of solutions is $vecx_0 + ker A$.)
            And $|ker A| = |F|^k$ for some $k ge 0$.



            Assuming the base field $F$ has infinite cardinality $alpha$ and the vector space is finite-dimensional, it follows that the number of solutions is $0, 1,$ or $alpha$ (since $|F|^0 = 1$ and $|F|^k = alpha$ for $k ge 1$).







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Sep 17 '15 at 15:18

























            answered Sep 16 '15 at 22:21









            6005

            35.1k750124




            35.1k750124











            • @user1551 yes, thank you. I corrected that and two other minor typos.
              – 6005
              Sep 17 '15 at 15:20
















            • @user1551 yes, thank you. I corrected that and two other minor typos.
              – 6005
              Sep 17 '15 at 15:20















            @user1551 yes, thank you. I corrected that and two other minor typos.
            – 6005
            Sep 17 '15 at 15:20




            @user1551 yes, thank you. I corrected that and two other minor typos.
            – 6005
            Sep 17 '15 at 15:20

















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1438658%2fproof-that-any-linear-system-cannot-have-exactly-2-solutions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            1st Magritte Awards