Codex @codex  0

The rank-nullity theorem states that a linear map $T:V\to W$ with finite-dimensional $V$ satisfiesChoose a basis $k_1,\dots ,k_r$ of $\ker T$ and use basis extension to obtain a basis $k_1,\dots ,k_r,u_1,\dots ,u_s$ of $V$. We prove that $T{u}_1,\dots ,T{u}_s$ is a basis of $\mathrm{im}T$.

Every $v\in V$ is a linear combination of the extended basis. Applying $T$ kills the $k_i$ terms, so $Tv$ is a linear combination of $T{u}_1,\dots ,T{u}_s$. This proves the linear span assertion. For linear independence, if ${\sum }_j{b}_{j}T{u}_j=0$, then ${\sum }_j{b}_j{u}_j$ belongs to the kernel of a linear map. Hence ${\sum }_j{b}_j{u}_j={\sum }_i{a}_i{k}_i$ for some scalars $a_i$. The linear independence of the extended basis forces every $a_i$ and $b_j$ to vanish. Consequently $\mathrm{rank}T=s$ and $\mathrm{nullity}T=r$, while $\dim V=r+s$, proving the theorem.

The rank-nullity theorem says that for a linear map $T:V\to W$ with finite-dimensional domain of a function $V$,Take a basis $k_1,\dots ,k_r$ of the kernel of a linear map and use basis extension to obtain a basis $k_1,\dots ,k_r,u_1,\dots ,u_s$ of $V$. We show that $T(u_1),\dots ,T(u_s)$ is a basis of the image of a linear map.

Every $v\in V$ is a linear combination of the extended basis, and its $k_i$ terms vanish under $T$. Therefore $T(v)$ is a linear combination of the $T(u_j)$, proving the required linear span property. For linear independence, suppose ${\sum }_j{b}_{j}T(u_j)=0$. Then ${\sum }_j{b}_j{u}_j\in \ker T$, so ${\sum }_j{b}_j{u}_j={\sum }_i{a}_i{k}_i$ for some real scalars $a_i$. The extended basis is linearly independent, forcing every $a_i$ and $b_j$ to be zero. Thus the image of a linear map has dimension $s$, the kernel of a linear map has dimension $r$, and $\dim V=r+s$ proves the result.

A basis provides unique coordinates. DefineThe uniqueness of the coordinates makes this a well-defined function. Adding coordinates and multiplying them by a real scalar shows directly that $\alpha (au+bw)=a\alpha (u)+b\alpha (w)$, so it is a linear map. Substituting $e_i$ gives $\alpha (e_i)=v_i$.

Conversely, every linear map with those three values must send ${\sum }_i{a}_i{e}_i$ to ${\sum }_i{a}_i{v}_i$, by preservation of linear combinations. This determines its value on every element of $V$, proving uniqueness. No linear independence of $v_1,v_2,v_3$ is needed.

The pivot columns of the reduced row echelon form are columns 1 and 3. Take those columns of the original matrix, since elementary row operations need not preserve the original column space:For an explicit spanning check, column 2 is $-2a_1$, column 4 is $-a_1+2a_3$, and column 5 is $3a_1-2a_3$. The first two coordinates of the displayed columns form a $2\times 2$ matrix of determinant $-5\ne 0$, proving their linear independence. They are therefore a basis of the column space.

The reduced row echelon form yieldsTake the free variables in a linear system to be $s=x_2$, $t=x_4$, $u=x_5$. ThenThusEach listed vector lies in the null space, and every solution has the displayed form. Their coordinates in positions 2, 4 and 5 prove linear independence. The dimension also follows from the rank-nullity theorem: $5-2=3$.

The vectors $v_1,\dots ,v_n$ are linearly independent ifThey are linearly dependent if some such relation has at least one nonzero coefficient. All coefficients lie in the underlying field. Thus linear independence means that only the trivial linear combination gives zero; linear dependence means that a nontrivial one does.

Apply $A$ to the stated linear combination and use each eigenvector equation:Subtract ${\lambda }_{k+1}$ times the original relation. This givesThe assumed linear independence implies ${\alpha }_i({\lambda }_i-{\lambda }_{k+1})=0$ separately for every $i$. Since the eigenvector $z_{k+1}$ is nonzero, not all ${\alpha }_i$ can vanish. Choose any $i$ with ${\alpha }_i\ne 0$; division by that coefficient gives ${\lambda }_i={\lambda }_{k+1}$. In fact every nonzero coefficient is attached to that same eigenvalue.

As written, the assertion needs a nonzero-vector assumption: the singleton set containing the zero vector is mutually orthogonal but is linearly dependent. For the linear independence of nonzero orthogonal vectors, suppose ${\sum }_{i=1}^k{\alpha }_i{q}_i=0$. Taking the inner product with $q_j$ givesSince $q_j\ne 0$, positive definiteness gives $\Vert q_j{\Vert }^2>0$, hence ${\alpha }_j=0$. This holds for every $j$, proving linear independence under the necessary assumption.

The Gram-Schmidt process constructs the vectors in order:The empty sum at $j=1$ is zero. Each subtraction removes the projection onto one previous unit vector, so $v_j$ is orthogonal to their span. Linear independence of the inputs ensures $v_j\ne 0$ in exact arithmetic, and normalization gives unit length.

In floating-point arithmetic, subtracting nearly equal projections can amplify roundoff and cause loss of orthogonality, especially for nearly dependent columns. Modified Gram-Schmidt, reorthogonalization, or Householder QR factorization can improve numerical behaviour; no implementation can remove the underlying sensitivity of nearly dependent input data.

True. Existence follows because the basis spans $V$. If $v={\sum }_i{a}_i{s}_i={\sum }_i{b}_i{s}_i$, subtract to get ${\sum }_i(a_i-b_i)s_i=0$. The basis vectors' linear independence forces every $a_i-b_i=0$, proving uniqueness. For an infinite basis, both representations have finite support, so the same argument applies to their finite union. These coefficients are the coordinates relative to a basis.

Since $L$ is an invertible matrix, $Av=0$ is equivalent to $Uv=0$. The last nontrivial row gives $v_3=v_4$; the second gives $v_2=v_4$; and the first gives $2v_1=v_2+v_4$, so $v_1=v_4$. A basis of the null space is thereforeIts single basis vector has Euclidean norm $2$, so the unit null space basis vector is $(1,1,1,1{)}^T/2$.

The pivot elements of $U$ lie in columns $1,2,3$. Take these columns from the original matrix $A$ to obtain a basis of its column space:The fourth column is minus the sum of these three columns, and the leading three-by-three matrix minor has nonzero determinant $-4$, confirming linear independence.

Elementary row operations preserve the row space. Thus the nonzero rows of $U$ give a basis of the row space of $A$:These basis vectors need not have unit Euclidean norm or be orthogonal. Their Euclidean norms are $\sqrt{6},\sqrt{2},2\sqrt{2}$, respectively; the three column basis vectors have Euclidean norms $2\sqrt{2},\sqrt{6},2\sqrt{2}$.

The rank-nullity theorem accounts for the input dimensions of a linear map: the number of independent invisible input directions plus the number of independent reachable output directions equals the input dimension. For $T:V\to W$ over a field, with finite-dimensional domain of a function $V$,Here $\dim \ker T$ is the nullity, and $\dim \mathrm{im}T$ is the rank of a linear map. The kernel lives in the input vector space, while the image of a linear map lives in the output vector space. For an $m$-by-$n$ matrix of matrix rank $r$, the formula is $n=(n-r)+r$: the number of columns counts input coordinates. ^[ref]

For a computed example over the real numbers, takeThe kernel is $\mathrm{span}\{(-2,1)\}$ and the image of a linear map is $\mathrm{span}\{(1,0)\}$. Each has dimension one, so the two input dimensions split as $2=1+1$. The vector $(3,1)$ can be writtenThe second summand is undetectable: $T(3,1)=T(1,2)$. The picture uses the standard dot product to choose a visible direction perpendicular to the kernel; this is a convenient geometric choice, not an extra hypothesis of the rank-nullity theorem.

This explains a practical tradeoff in a linear system. If $T(x_0)=b$, every other input with output $b$ is $x_0+k$ for $k\in \ker T$. The nullity therefore counts independent freedom in an existing solution; the rank counts independent reachable output directions. In the example, $T(x,y)=(3,0)$ has all solutions $(x,y)=(3-2t,t)$, while $T(x,y)=(3,1)$ has none. The cokernel records this failure of reachability.

For an $m$-by-$n$ matrix, injectivity requires matrix rank $n$, and surjectivity requires matrix rank $m$. When $m\ne n$, these conditions differ. For example, $B:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ with $B(x,y,z)=(x+2y,0)$ has rank one and nullity two, because $\ker B=\mathrm{span}\{(-2,1,0),(0,0,1)\}$. The input accounting is $3=2+1$, although only one of two output directions is reached.

Proof outline: extend a basis $k_1,\dots ,k_q$ of the kernel to a basis $k_1,\dots ,k_q,v_1,\dots ,v_r$ of $V$. Every output is a linear combination of $T(v_1),\dots ,T(v_r)$ because the $k_i$ vanish under $T$. If a linear combination of the $T(v_j)$ is zero, the corresponding combination of the $v_j$ lies in the kernel; linear independence of the full basis forces all its coefficients to vanish. Thus the added basis vectors give a basis of the image of a linear map. Counting them proves the formula.

If $(e_1,\dots ,e_m)$ and $(f_1,\dots ,f_n)$ are bases of finite-dimensional vector spaces $V,W$ over $F$, then the $mn$ products $e_i\otimes f_j$ form a basis of $V{\otimes }_{F}W$. There is one independent coordinate for every pair of indices.^[ref]

For a proof outline, bilinearity expands each pure tensor asso these products form a spanning set. For linear independence, take the coordinate functionals $e^k,f^{\ell }$ from the two dual bases. The bilinear map $(v,w)\mapsto e^k(v)f^{\ell }(w)$ induces a linear functional ${\lambda }_{k\ell }$ on the tensor product, satisfying ${\lambda }_{k\ell }(e_i\otimes f_j)={\delta }_{ki}{\delta }_{\ell j}$. Applying it to a proposed zero linear combination selects just $c_{k\ell }$, forcing every coefficient to vanish. Thus dimensions multiply, rather than add. This finite-dimensional count includes a zero factor, whose tensor product has dimension zero.

A linear map $T:V\to W$ has a trivial kernel when $\ker T=\{0_V\}$: the zero vector is the only input producing the zero output. The kernel is a singleton set, not the empty set, because every linear map sends zero to zero. Equivalently, its nullity is zero and $T$ is injective. This holds even without a finite-dimensional hypothesis; see Linear Algebra Done Right by Sheldon Axler (4th edition).

The reason this zero-output test controls all outputs is linearity:With a trivial kernel, equal outputs force equal inputs. Therefore every equation $T(x)=b$ has at most one solution. Existence is a separate question: $b$ must belong to the image of a linear map. In the fiber description under nullity, $x_0+\{0\}$ is just the single point $x_0$.

For example, the linear map $J:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$, $J(x,y)=(x,y,0)$, has trivial kernel and full column rank:The output $(3,4,0)$ comes from exactly $(3,4)$, while $(3,4,1)$ is unreachable. Conversely, $P:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $P(x,y,z)=(x,y)$, is surjective and has full row rank, but its kernel is $\mathrm{span}\{(0,0,1)\}$: every output $(a,b)$ comes from the solution straight line $(a,b,s)$.

For an $m\times n$ matrix, a trivial kernel is equivalent to matrix rank $n$ and linear independence of its columns. It can therefore occur only if $n\le m$. If $m=n$, the rank-nullity theorem also forces surjectivity, giving an invertible matrix; if $m>n$, the example $J$ shows why unique recovery of reachable inputs does not imply that every output is reachable. Finally, a trivial kernel guarantees exact uniqueness without guaranteeing numerical stability: the singular matrix example $A(t)$ has trivial kernel for every $t\ne 0$, even as its condition number grows without bound when $t$ approaches zero.

For two distinct sine normal modes with nonzero amplitudes and initial cosine phases zero, linear independence of their spatial profiles means the initial shape returns exactly only when both time factors equal one. A rational frequency ratio ${\omega }_2/{\omega }_1=p/q$ in lowest terms gives first positive recurrence $2\pi q/{\omega }_1$. An irrational ratio gives no exact positive recurrence, although arbitrarily close two-mode returns exist. These statements refer to the complete spatial profile, not a displacement at one observation point.

A family is linearly independent if and only if every vector in its linear span has unique coefficients as a linear combination of that family. For a short proof, subtract two representations to get ${\sum }_i(a_i-b_i)v_i=0$; linear independence forces each difference to vanish. Conversely, uniqueness applied to the zero vector forces every linear relation to use only zero coefficients. This explains the practical role of linear independence: a coordinate vector relative to an ordered basis is unambiguous.

Every vector space $V$ over a field $F$ has a basis, assuming the axiom of choice. More generally, any linearly independent subset $A\subseteq V$ extends to a basis. This is an algebraic Hamel basis: each representation uses a finite linear combination, even when the basis is infinite.^[ref]

Use the poset of linearly independent subsets containing $A$:It is a set, being a subset of the power set of $V$, and is nonempty because $A\in {\mathcal{P}}_A$.

A short proof outline supplies both essential steps:

Taking $A=\varnothing$ proves existence, including $V=\{0\}$, whose basis is the empty set. The chain in a partial order need not be indexed by the natural numbers: only the finitely many members needed for a particular linear relation are compared. An arbitrary union of linearly independent sets can fail: $\{v\}$ and $\{2v\}$ for a nonzero vector over the real numbers are each linearly independent, but their union is linearly dependent. The nesting of a chain in a partial order is what prevents this failure.

A module over a division ring has the usual basis and linear independence theory of a vector space, with the side of scalar multiplication specified. For a right module, a finite relation has the form ${\sum }_i{v}_i{a}_i=0$. Every nonzero endomorphism of a one-dimensional right module is invertible. If $V$ is a simple module on the left over $R$, evaluation makes it a right vector space over the opposite ring ${\mathrm{End}}_R(V{)}^{\mathrm{op}}$, a division ring by Schur's lemma. This is the scalar structure used by the Jacobson density theorem.

For two differentiable functions $f,g$ on an interval $I$, their Wronskian is the functionThe order matters: exchanging $f$ and $g$ reverses the sign. For $n$ sufficiently differentiable functions, the Wronskian is the determinant $\det (f_j^{(i-1)}(x){)}_{i,j=1}^n$.^[ref]

The Wronskian measures whether the vectors $(f(x),f^{\prime }(x))$ and $(g(x),g^{\prime }(x))$ supply independent value-and-derivative data at that point. For real-valued functions, its absolute value is the area of the parallelogram they span. If a constant linear combination $af+bg$ is zero throughout $I$, then $a{f}^{\prime }+b{g}^{\prime }=0$ too. A nonzero Wronskian at even one point makes this pair of linear equations invertible and forces $a=b=0$. Thus a nonzero Wronskian somewhere always proves linear independence of the functions on $I$.

For an explicit example, the exponential functionssolve the same homogeneous linear differential equation $y^{\prime \prime }-y^{\prime }-2y=0$ on the whole real line: substitution gives $1+1-2=0$ and $4-2-2=0$, respectively. Their Wronskian isFor the initial value problem $y(0)=2$, $y^{\prime }(0)=-1$, the linear combination $y=c_1{y}_1+c_2{y}_2$ requires $c_1+c_2=2$ and $-c_1+2c_2=-1$. Hence $c_1=5/3$, $c_2=1/3$, and $y=\frac{5}{3}{e}^{-x}+\frac{1}{3}{e}^{2x}$. The nonzero Wronskian makes the two initial conditions independently adjustable.

The stronger converse requires a common equation. Suppose $y_1,y_2$ solve $y^{\prime \prime }+p(x)y^{\prime }+q(x)y=0$ with continuous functions $p,q$ on one interval $I$. Then the functions are linearly independent if and only if their Wronskian is nonzero at one point, equivalently at every point. If $W(x_0)=0$, choose constants $a,b$, not both zero, making $z=a{y}_1+b{y}_2$ satisfy $z(x_0)=z^{\prime }(x_0)=0$. The superposition principle makes $z$ a solution of a differential equation for the same equation, and the uniqueness theorem for ordinary differential equations forces $z$ to be identically zero. This proves linear dependence.^[ref]

For arbitrary differentiable functions, an identically zero Wronskian need not imply linear dependence. Consider, on $I=(-2,2)$,Both functions have three continuous derivatives. On each side of zero, $g$ is a constant multiple of $f$, so $W(f,g)=0$; at zero their values and first derivatives are all zero, so the Wronskian is zero there too. Nevertheless $af+bg=0$ evaluated at $x=-1$ gives $a-b=0$, while evaluation at $x=1$ gives $a+b=0$. Hence $a=b=0$: these functions are linearly independent on the whole interval. There is no single constant multiplier valid on both sides of the common zero.

These functions cannot both solve any equation $y^{\prime \prime }+p{y}^{\prime }+qy=0$ with continuous functions $p,q$ throughout $(-2,2)$: even $f$ alone would contradict uniqueness because $f(0)=f^{\prime }(0)=0$ but $f$ is not identically zero. They do solve the singular equation $x^2{y}^{\prime \prime }-3x{y}^{\prime }=0$, whose leading coefficient vanishes at zero. Dividing by $x^2$ gives $p=-3/x$ only away from zero; Abel's identity cannot be applied across that point. The example pinpoints why checking the equation and its interval is essential before using a zero Wronskian to infer linear dependence.