Basis and linear independence II
About points...
We associate a certain number of points with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
About difficulty...
We associate a certain difficulty with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
Question
Solution
Short
Video
\(\LaTeX\)
No explanation / solution video to this exercise has yet been created.
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Exercise:
Let v_...v_nin V be s.t. Spv_...v_nV and let u_...u_min V be linear indepent. Then mleq n.
Solution:
Proof. The proof will have at most n steps. In the first step we'll replace u_ with one of the vectors v_...v_n: bf step : Consider the list of n+ vectors u_v_...v_n. By Lemma C this list is linear depent. By Lemma A one of the vectors in this list is in the span of the vectors appearing before it in the list and also if we drop that vector from the list the span doesn't change. By Lemma B that unnecessary vector that can be dropped is not u_ because u_ is lineary indepent since u_...u_m are. We drop that vector from the list u_v_...v_n. We now have a new list of n vectors in which the sublist consisting of the first vector is linearly indepent. And this new list of n vectors still spans V. bf step leq j: From the previous step number j- we have a list of length n that spans V and s.t. the first j- vectors are u_...u_j- and the other n-j- vectors are taken from v_...v_n. This list can be written as u_...u_j-w_...w_n-j-. We consider now the list u_...u_j-u_jw_...w_n-j- which has n+ vectors. By Lemma C this list is linearly depent. By Lemma A again we can drop one of the vectors in the list without changing the span and s.t. this vector is in the span of the vectors standing vefore it in the list. By Lemma B that vector that can be dropped cannot be one of u_...u_j. It must be one of the vectors w_...w_n-j- because u_...u_j are linearly indepent. Now ase by contradiction that m n. Then we can perform the stepts j...n and after step jn we obtain a list that looks like u_...u_n and Spu_...u_nV in other words if m n then after step #n all the vectors from the original list v_...v_n are replaced by u_...u_n. But since m n we still can use the vectors u_n+...u_m as follows.Add u_n+ to the list: we get u_...u_nu_n+. Since Spu_...u_nV by Lemma C we deduce that u_n+u_...u_n is linearly depent contradiction lightning This proves that mleq n as claimed by Lemma D.
Let v_...v_nin V be s.t. Spv_...v_nV and let u_...u_min V be linear indepent. Then mleq n.
Solution:
Proof. The proof will have at most n steps. In the first step we'll replace u_ with one of the vectors v_...v_n: bf step : Consider the list of n+ vectors u_v_...v_n. By Lemma C this list is linear depent. By Lemma A one of the vectors in this list is in the span of the vectors appearing before it in the list and also if we drop that vector from the list the span doesn't change. By Lemma B that unnecessary vector that can be dropped is not u_ because u_ is lineary indepent since u_...u_m are. We drop that vector from the list u_v_...v_n. We now have a new list of n vectors in which the sublist consisting of the first vector is linearly indepent. And this new list of n vectors still spans V. bf step leq j: From the previous step number j- we have a list of length n that spans V and s.t. the first j- vectors are u_...u_j- and the other n-j- vectors are taken from v_...v_n. This list can be written as u_...u_j-w_...w_n-j-. We consider now the list u_...u_j-u_jw_...w_n-j- which has n+ vectors. By Lemma C this list is linearly depent. By Lemma A again we can drop one of the vectors in the list without changing the span and s.t. this vector is in the span of the vectors standing vefore it in the list. By Lemma B that vector that can be dropped cannot be one of u_...u_j. It must be one of the vectors w_...w_n-j- because u_...u_j are linearly indepent. Now ase by contradiction that m n. Then we can perform the stepts j...n and after step jn we obtain a list that looks like u_...u_n and Spu_...u_nV in other words if m n then after step #n all the vectors from the original list v_...v_n are replaced by u_...u_n. But since m n we still can use the vectors u_n+...u_m as follows.Add u_n+ to the list: we get u_...u_nu_n+. Since Spu_...u_nV by Lemma C we deduce that u_n+u_...u_n is linearly depent contradiction lightning This proves that mleq n as claimed by Lemma D.
Meta Information
Exercise:
Let v_...v_nin V be s.t. Spv_...v_nV and let u_...u_min V be linear indepent. Then mleq n.
Solution:
Proof. The proof will have at most n steps. In the first step we'll replace u_ with one of the vectors v_...v_n: bf step : Consider the list of n+ vectors u_v_...v_n. By Lemma C this list is linear depent. By Lemma A one of the vectors in this list is in the span of the vectors appearing before it in the list and also if we drop that vector from the list the span doesn't change. By Lemma B that unnecessary vector that can be dropped is not u_ because u_ is lineary indepent since u_...u_m are. We drop that vector from the list u_v_...v_n. We now have a new list of n vectors in which the sublist consisting of the first vector is linearly indepent. And this new list of n vectors still spans V. bf step leq j: From the previous step number j- we have a list of length n that spans V and s.t. the first j- vectors are u_...u_j- and the other n-j- vectors are taken from v_...v_n. This list can be written as u_...u_j-w_...w_n-j-. We consider now the list u_...u_j-u_jw_...w_n-j- which has n+ vectors. By Lemma C this list is linearly depent. By Lemma A again we can drop one of the vectors in the list without changing the span and s.t. this vector is in the span of the vectors standing vefore it in the list. By Lemma B that vector that can be dropped cannot be one of u_...u_j. It must be one of the vectors w_...w_n-j- because u_...u_j are linearly indepent. Now ase by contradiction that m n. Then we can perform the stepts j...n and after step jn we obtain a list that looks like u_...u_n and Spu_...u_nV in other words if m n then after step #n all the vectors from the original list v_...v_n are replaced by u_...u_n. But since m n we still can use the vectors u_n+...u_m as follows.Add u_n+ to the list: we get u_...u_nu_n+. Since Spu_...u_nV by Lemma C we deduce that u_n+u_...u_n is linearly depent contradiction lightning This proves that mleq n as claimed by Lemma D.
Let v_...v_nin V be s.t. Spv_...v_nV and let u_...u_min V be linear indepent. Then mleq n.
Solution:
Proof. The proof will have at most n steps. In the first step we'll replace u_ with one of the vectors v_...v_n: bf step : Consider the list of n+ vectors u_v_...v_n. By Lemma C this list is linear depent. By Lemma A one of the vectors in this list is in the span of the vectors appearing before it in the list and also if we drop that vector from the list the span doesn't change. By Lemma B that unnecessary vector that can be dropped is not u_ because u_ is lineary indepent since u_...u_m are. We drop that vector from the list u_v_...v_n. We now have a new list of n vectors in which the sublist consisting of the first vector is linearly indepent. And this new list of n vectors still spans V. bf step leq j: From the previous step number j- we have a list of length n that spans V and s.t. the first j- vectors are u_...u_j- and the other n-j- vectors are taken from v_...v_n. This list can be written as u_...u_j-w_...w_n-j-. We consider now the list u_...u_j-u_jw_...w_n-j- which has n+ vectors. By Lemma C this list is linearly depent. By Lemma A again we can drop one of the vectors in the list without changing the span and s.t. this vector is in the span of the vectors standing vefore it in the list. By Lemma B that vector that can be dropped cannot be one of u_...u_j. It must be one of the vectors w_...w_n-j- because u_...u_j are linearly indepent. Now ase by contradiction that m n. Then we can perform the stepts j...n and after step jn we obtain a list that looks like u_...u_n and Spu_...u_nV in other words if m n then after step #n all the vectors from the original list v_...v_n are replaced by u_...u_n. But since m n we still can use the vectors u_n+...u_m as follows.Add u_n+ to the list: we get u_...u_nu_n+. Since Spu_...u_nV by Lemma C we deduce that u_n+u_...u_n is linearly depent contradiction lightning This proves that mleq n as claimed by Lemma D.
Contained in these collections: