1
$\begingroup$

From Wikipedia:

If the functions $f_i$ are linearly dependent, then so are the columns of the Wronskian as differentiation is a linear operation, so the Wronskian vanishes. Thus, the Wronskian can be used to show that a set of differentiable functions is linearly independent on an interval by showing that it does not vanish identically.

Here's what I don't understand. If $f_i$ are dependent on some $I\subset \mathbb R$, then there is a point $x_0\in I$ at which there is a non-trivial linear dependence relation (because linear independence means that any relation is trivial for all $x\in I$). Then the Wronskian vanishes at the point $x_0$. The negation of this would be: if the Wronskian does not vanish at any point in $I$, then the $f_i$ are independent on $I$. But that's not what Wikipedia says. (It says if there is a point $x_1\in I$ at which the Wronskian is non-zero, then the $f_i$ are independent.) Am I wrong?

Also, at what point does the proof of the converse fail?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

If $f_i$ are dependent on some $I\subset\mathbb{R}$, then there is a point $x_0\in I$ at which there is a non-trivial linear dependence relation…

No. Linear dependence of a collection of functions $f_i$ on an interval $I\subset\mathbb{R}$ means that there exists a nontrivial linear combination of these functions that is identically equal to zero on $I$ — at all points, not just at some point. This is the only right way to interpret the definition: the result of a linear combination to establish linear dependence must be the zero element of the same vector space. The vector space here is a set of (differentiable) functions on $I$, whose zero element is the zero function — the function $O(x)$ such that $O(x)=0$ for all $x\in I$.

So for linearly dependent functions the Wronskian vanishes at all points of $I$. The negation of this statement is that for linearly independent functions the Wronskian is non-zero at least for one point $x_0\in I$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Could you explain why does the converse not hold? I don't see why is this proof incorrect: if the Wronskian is identically zero, then the columns of the Wronskian matrix are dependent (because the bottom row of RREF of the matrix is zero), but then there is a non-trivial relation between the first elements of each column. $\endgroup$ – user419669 Oct 14 '17 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ @user419669: I think your mistake is that you're thinking of the elements of the Wronskian as numbers, but they are not numbers -- they are functions. Roughly speaking. the fact that the Wronskian is zero when evaluated at any point $x_1\in I$ gives us a linear dependence between the numerical columns of $W(x_1)$. But the coefficients of such linear dependence may vary from point to point, and as a result there wouldn't be a common linear dependence among the $f_i$'s as functions. $\endgroup$ – zipirovich Oct 14 '17 at 4:57
  • $\begingroup$ @user419669: The whole idea of RREF works with numbers (or elements of a field), but not necessarily with functions which do not form a field because we can't always divide by a function. For example, imagine $I=(-2,2)$, and you have $x^2$ in the upper-left corner of the Wronskian. It's a non-zero element as a function, even though it is equal to zero at one of the points of the domain. So the whole structure of the RREF of the numerical matrices $W(0)$ and $W(1)$ can be different because one has a zero and one has a nonzero in the upper-left corner. $\endgroup$ – zipirovich Oct 14 '17 at 5:01

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.