Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I need to discuss the linear independence of the following given vectors: \begin{align} \sin(x), \sin(x+1), \sin(x+2)\end{align} there are many similar questions on math.SE but most of which I have looked into deal with integrals and all I have to work with is the elementary definition of linear independence:

The given vectors are considered as linearly independent if and only if \begin{align}\lambda_1 \sin(x)+\lambda_2\sin(x+1)+\lambda_3\sin(x+2)=0 \implies \lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda_3=0 \end{align} The way I have approached this now was to use the trigonometric identities and then simplify the result, merging the constants together. I am not sure if this is a correct workaround but here is my attempt: \begin{align}\lambda_1 \sin(x) + \lambda_2 (\sin(1)\cos(x)+\cos(1)\sin(x))+\lambda_3(\sin(2)\cos(x)+\cos(2)\sin(x)) \\=(\underbrace{\lambda_1+\lambda_2\cos(1)+\lambda_3\cos(2)}_{:=k_1})\sin(x)+ (\underbrace{\lambda_2 \sin(1)+\lambda_3\sin(2)}_{:=k_2})\cos(x) \end{align} such that I can write: \begin{align} k_1 \sin(x) + k_2 \cos(x)=0 \implies k_1=k_2=0 \end{align} Due to the fact that $ \cos(x), \sin(x)$ are linearly independent. My problem is that I seem to have 'erased' one scalar variable with my substitution, would I need to use back substitution now and see if I can deduce $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda_3$ from there, or is my approach wrong from the beginning?

Additional:

If I can bother to ask, intuition wise the given set do not look like vectors at all to me, since I am very new to this subject I may have wait with further understanding this problem, but would one of the above vectors just look like the regular function, depending on at which point $x$ they are evaluated?

share|improve this question
4  
A vector is what we call a member of a vector space, whatever it might be. –  Git Gud Oct 27 '13 at 21:36
    
"or is my approach wrong from the beginning" No, the approach is right. Maybe you should think about which result you will be able to prove. –  Daniel Fischer Oct 27 '13 at 21:37
    
in an earlier exercise I did already have to show that $\cos(x), \sin(x)$ are linearly independent, my goal was to reach that point again which I have managed to do by merging the constants together as demonstrated. Is this already sufficient or are there some steps left? –  Spaced Oct 27 '13 at 21:40
1  
A different path you might think about... when we discuss function space the equations you write hold for all $x$. Thus, we can evaluate at special values of $x$ to cipher data. For example, you might think about $x=\pi$ and $x = 1-\pi$ etc.. –  James S. Cook Oct 27 '13 at 21:40
    
Did you try to developp $sin(x+1+1)$ instead of $sin(x+2)$? –  Katsu Oct 27 '13 at 21:42
show 5 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Expand $\sin(x+1)$ and $\sin(x+2)$ using the identity for $\sin(\alpha+\beta)$. You will find that the three "vectors" $\sin(x)$, $\sin(x+1)$ , and $\sin(x+2)$ are all linear combinations of the two "vectors" $\sin(x)$ and $\cos(x)$. What can you conclude from that? Try to work your conclusion into a proof using the definition of linear independence or linear dependence.

EDIT: I'm sorry, it looks you already did most of what I suggested above. You get a system of two linear equations that must be satisfied by the three variables $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, and $\lambda_3$. What usually happens when you have fewer equations then variables? Can you find a solution in which at least of one the $\lambda$'s is nonzero?

Whoever asked you the question should have specified what the vector space is. I have to guess. I'll guess it's the set of all continuous functions from the real numbers to the real numbers. A "vector" is such a function. "Vectors" are added to each other and mutliplied by scalars in the obvious manner (if this is not obvious to you, hopefully you have a text, and that text should have examples like this one).

As Git Gud wrote, to a mathematician, a "vector" is simply an element of a vector space. Wikipedia has an article on vector spaces that begins with a long explanation, probably aimed at non-mathematicians, explaining why one might be interested in such a concept, before they get to the definition. Unfortunately, the precise definition includes a long list of rules. Fortunately, all of the rules are intuitively compelling, and it is hard to imagine (at least for me) why one would want a "vector space" not to satisfy any of the rules.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.