0
$\begingroup$

I am reading some notes, along with that I am trying to follow the mathematics behind.

I have a set of functions that are the derivatives of the head functions. Regardless from where they come, they are defined as

$f_i(x)= \begin{cases} 4 & x_{i_1}\leq x < x_i \\ -4 & x_i \leq x\leq x_{i+1} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}.$

So the text gives the example of $f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4,f_5$ on an interval $[0,1]$ where we make the step size between the $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$ to be $1/4$. It also claims that they are linearly dependent, but $f_2,f_3,f_4$ are independent. My thinking first was that this makes sense because

for example $$f_1(x)+f_2(x)+f_3(x)+f_4(x)+f_5(x) =0,$$

where I just pick my $a_i=0$ for all $i$ and $x=0.2$. This shows that the $f_i$ are dependent. But my problem is why are $f_2,f_3,f_4$ independent?

Can't we do the same thing again $f_2(0.6)+f_3(0.6)+f_4(0.6)=-4+4+0=0$

Can someone help me understand this better?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

It's not clear to me why $f_1,\dots, f_5$ are dependent; that seems to depend on which $x_i$ were chosen.

In any case, the core confusion seems to be this: in order to say that $f_2,f_3,f_4$ are linearly dependent functions, we must be able to say something like $f_2(x) + f_3(x) + f_4(x)=0$ for every $x$. That is, some (non-trivial) linear combination of $f_2,f_3,f_4$ must produce the zero-function.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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