Proof in linear algebra/calculus
$begingroup$
So I am currently studying Calculus and Linear Algebra and I came across the same concepts that is being applied in a lot of the proofs that I read for Calculus and Linear algebra but not capable of fully understanding it.
Claim: There exists a $lambda in mathbb{R}$ such that $nabla F(a)=lambda nabla G(a)$
So the claim above I am mentioning is one of the theorem in calculus known as the Lagrange Multiplier theorem. And it is the tool known to be solve the "constrained optimization" problem where $F$ is the function we try to maximize/minimize subject to the constraint $G=0$.
In the proofs that I read, it finished it off like this:
"$nabla F(a) cdot u=lambda (nabla G(a) cdot u)$ where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector.
Question: My question is how does finish off the proof when we still the $u$ vector sticking out in the proof? The text even mentions that it's because $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector so it does not matter or something along the lines of that but cannot comprehend it. Any clarification will be appreciated, and thanks in advance.
Once again, a lot of the proofs are finished off like that but it doesn't feel complete to me because we still have that $u$ sticking out. If there is a simpler example that I can understand such concept with will also be appreciated.
linear-algebra multivariable-calculus proof-explanation
asked Jan 16 at 17:06
javacoderjavacoder
848
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So I am currently studying Calculus and Linear Algebra and I came across the same concepts that is being applied in a lot of the proofs that I read for Calculus and Linear algebra but not capable of fully understanding it.
Claim: There exists a $lambda in mathbb{R}$ such that $nabla F(a)=lambda nabla G(a)$
So the claim above I am mentioning is one of the theorem in calculus known as the Lagrange Multiplier theorem. And it is the tool known to be solve the "constrained optimization" problem where $F$ is the function we try to maximize/minimize subject to the constraint $G=0$.
In the proofs that I read, it finished it off like this:
"$nabla F(a) cdot u=lambda (nabla G(a) cdot u)$ where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector.
Question: My question is how does finish off the proof when we still the $u$ vector sticking out in the proof? The text even mentions that it's because $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector so it does not matter or something along the lines of that but cannot comprehend it. Any clarification will be appreciated, and thanks in advance.
Once again, a lot of the proofs are finished off like that but it doesn't feel complete to me because we still have that $u$ sticking out. If there is a simpler example that I can understand such concept with will also be appreciated.
linear-algebra multivariable-calculus proof-explanation
asked Jan 16 at 17:06
javacoderjavacoder
848
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Your "claim["is completely incomprehensible if you don't define things...
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Jan 16 at 17:08
$begingroup$
Okay, I'll add more details sorry about that.
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:10
$begingroup$
Added details, please check!
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:15
$begingroup$
Ignoring the specifics of the claim you are referring to... it appears your underlying question is "Why can we assert that for maps $A,B$ we have that $forall x~(Ax = Bx)$ implies $A=B$?" To see this, suppose to the contrary that $Aneq B$. Try to show then that this would imply that there is at least one $x$ for which $Axneq Bx$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Jan 16 at 17:17
$begingroup$
What else is there that I missed? Not everyone is capable of doing such things and be so aware of their math, not everyone's math is so strong. How about you stop being mean and ask and guide me for what is needed for your satisfaction to answer my question?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So I am currently studying Calculus and Linear Algebra and I came across the same concepts that is being applied in a lot of the proofs that I read for Calculus and Linear algebra but not capable of fully understanding it.
Claim: There exists a $lambda in mathbb{R}$ such that $nabla F(a)=lambda nabla G(a)$
So the claim above I am mentioning is one of the theorem in calculus known as the Lagrange Multiplier theorem. And it is the tool known to be solve the "constrained optimization" problem where $F$ is the function we try to maximize/minimize subject to the constraint $G=0$.
In the proofs that I read, it finished it off like this:
"$nabla F(a) cdot u=lambda (nabla G(a) cdot u)$ where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector.
Question: My question is how does finish off the proof when we still the $u$ vector sticking out in the proof? The text even mentions that it's because $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector so it does not matter or something along the lines of that but cannot comprehend it. Any clarification will be appreciated, and thanks in advance.
Once again, a lot of the proofs are finished off like that but it doesn't feel complete to me because we still have that $u$ sticking out. If there is a simpler example that I can understand such concept with will also be appreciated.
linear-algebra multivariable-calculus proof-explanation
asked Jan 16 at 17:06
javacoderjavacoder
848
$endgroup$
So I am currently studying Calculus and Linear Algebra and I came across the same concepts that is being applied in a lot of the proofs that I read for Calculus and Linear algebra but not capable of fully understanding it.
Claim: There exists a $lambda in mathbb{R}$ such that $nabla F(a)=lambda nabla G(a)$
So the claim above I am mentioning is one of the theorem in calculus known as the Lagrange Multiplier theorem. And it is the tool known to be solve the "constrained optimization" problem where $F$ is the function we try to maximize/minimize subject to the constraint $G=0$.
In the proofs that I read, it finished it off like this:
"$nabla F(a) cdot u=lambda (nabla G(a) cdot u)$ where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector.
Question: My question is how does finish off the proof when we still the $u$ vector sticking out in the proof? The text even mentions that it's because $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector so it does not matter or something along the lines of that but cannot comprehend it. Any clarification will be appreciated, and thanks in advance.
Once again, a lot of the proofs are finished off like that but it doesn't feel complete to me because we still have that $u$ sticking out. If there is a simpler example that I can understand such concept with will also be appreciated.
linear-algebra multivariable-calculus proof-explanation
linear-algebra multivariable-calculus proof-explanation
asked Jan 16 at 17:06
javacoderjavacoder
848
asked Jan 16 at 17:06
javacoderjavacoder
848
edited Jan 16 at 17:15
javacoder
asked Jan 16 at 17:06
javacoderjavacoder
848
asked Jan 16 at 17:06
javacoderjavacoder
848
asked Jan 16 at 17:06
javacoderjavacoder
848
848
2
$begingroup$
Your "claim["is completely incomprehensible if you don't define things...
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Jan 16 at 17:08
$begingroup$
Okay, I'll add more details sorry about that.
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:10
$begingroup$
Added details, please check!
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:15
$begingroup$
Ignoring the specifics of the claim you are referring to... it appears your underlying question is "Why can we assert that for maps $A,B$ we have that $forall x~(Ax = Bx)$ implies $A=B$?" To see this, suppose to the contrary that $Aneq B$. Try to show then that this would imply that there is at least one $x$ for which $Axneq Bx$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Jan 16 at 17:17
$begingroup$
What else is there that I missed? Not everyone is capable of doing such things and be so aware of their math, not everyone's math is so strong. How about you stop being mean and ask and guide me for what is needed for your satisfaction to answer my question?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:30
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Your "claim["is completely incomprehensible if you don't define things...
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Jan 16 at 17:08
$begingroup$
Okay, I'll add more details sorry about that.
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:10
$begingroup$
Added details, please check!
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:15
$begingroup$
Ignoring the specifics of the claim you are referring to... it appears your underlying question is "Why can we assert that for maps $A,B$ we have that $forall x~(Ax = Bx)$ implies $A=B$?" To see this, suppose to the contrary that $Aneq B$. Try to show then that this would imply that there is at least one $x$ for which $Axneq Bx$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Jan 16 at 17:17
$begingroup$
What else is there that I missed? Not everyone is capable of doing such things and be so aware of their math, not everyone's math is so strong. How about you stop being mean and ask and guide me for what is needed for your satisfaction to answer my question?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:30
2
2
$begingroup$
Your "claim["is completely incomprehensible if you don't define things...
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Jan 16 at 17:08
$begingroup$
Your "claim["is completely incomprehensible if you don't define things...
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Jan 16 at 17:08
$begingroup$
Okay, I'll add more details sorry about that.
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:10
$begingroup$
Okay, I'll add more details sorry about that.
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:10
$begingroup$
Added details, please check!
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:15
$begingroup$
Added details, please check!
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:15
$begingroup$
Ignoring the specifics of the claim you are referring to... it appears your underlying question is "Why can we assert that for maps $A,B$ we have that $forall x~(Ax = Bx)$ implies $A=B$?" To see this, suppose to the contrary that $Aneq B$. Try to show then that this would imply that there is at least one $x$ for which $Axneq Bx$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Jan 16 at 17:17
$begingroup$
Ignoring the specifics of the claim you are referring to... it appears your underlying question is "Why can we assert that for maps $A,B$ we have that $forall x~(Ax = Bx)$ implies $A=B$?" To see this, suppose to the contrary that $Aneq B$. Try to show then that this would imply that there is at least one $x$ for which $Axneq Bx$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Jan 16 at 17:17
$begingroup$
What else is there that I missed? Not everyone is capable of doing such things and be so aware of their math, not everyone's math is so strong. How about you stop being mean and ask and guide me for what is needed for your satisfaction to answer my question?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:30
$begingroup$
What else is there that I missed? Not everyone is capable of doing such things and be so aware of their math, not everyone's math is so strong. How about you stop being mean and ask and guide me for what is needed for your satisfaction to answer my question?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:30
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If
$(nabla F(a)) cdot u= (lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$
for all unit vectors $u$, then in particular, we can consider the unit vector $u=e^{(i)}$ which has a one in the $i$th position and 0's elsewhere. The dot product of any vector with $e^{(i)}$ gives the $i$th component of that vector.
Thus
$(nabla F(a)) cdot e^{(i)}=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot e^{(i)}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
$(nabla F(a))_{i}=(lambda nabla G(a))_{i}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
Finally,
$(nabla F(a))=(lambda nabla G(a))$.
answered Jan 16 at 17:18
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
6,27611320
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But $u$ could be in a different direction from $e^{(i)}$ though, no?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:20
$begingroup$
But here u is arbitrary so, it must satisfy any vector, in particular, $e^i$ too.
$endgroup$
– Mustang
Jan 16 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@javacoder $u$ can be written as a linear combination of the $e^{(i)}$, so the result follows immediately by linearity of the dot product.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 16 at 18:04
$begingroup$
The key here is in the use of the universal quantifier. $(nabla F(a)) cdot u=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$ for all $u$. The particular vectors $e^{(i)}$ are included in that "for all."
$endgroup$
– Brian Borchers
Jan 16 at 18:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
one hint to understand is
in a finite dimensional space zero vector is the only vector orthogonal to all vectors
so from the last equation of your proof take the things in one side and use the above statement
answered Jan 16 at 17:14
Bijayan RayBijayan Ray
1511213
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
was it helpful?
$endgroup$
– Bijayan Ray
Jan 16 at 17:14
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3075987%2fproof-in-linear-algebra-calculus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If
$(nabla F(a)) cdot u= (lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$
for all unit vectors $u$, then in particular, we can consider the unit vector $u=e^{(i)}$ which has a one in the $i$th position and 0's elsewhere. The dot product of any vector with $e^{(i)}$ gives the $i$th component of that vector.
Thus
$(nabla F(a)) cdot e^{(i)}=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot e^{(i)}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
$(nabla F(a))_{i}=(lambda nabla G(a))_{i}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
Finally,
$(nabla F(a))=(lambda nabla G(a))$.
answered Jan 16 at 17:18
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
6,27611320
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But $u$ could be in a different direction from $e^{(i)}$ though, no?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:20
$begingroup$
But here u is arbitrary so, it must satisfy any vector, in particular, $e^i$ too.
$endgroup$
– Mustang
Jan 16 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@javacoder $u$ can be written as a linear combination of the $e^{(i)}$, so the result follows immediately by linearity of the dot product.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 16 at 18:04
$begingroup$
The key here is in the use of the universal quantifier. $(nabla F(a)) cdot u=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$ for all $u$. The particular vectors $e^{(i)}$ are included in that "for all."
$endgroup$
– Brian Borchers
Jan 16 at 18:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If
$(nabla F(a)) cdot u= (lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$
for all unit vectors $u$, then in particular, we can consider the unit vector $u=e^{(i)}$ which has a one in the $i$th position and 0's elsewhere. The dot product of any vector with $e^{(i)}$ gives the $i$th component of that vector.
Thus
$(nabla F(a)) cdot e^{(i)}=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot e^{(i)}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
$(nabla F(a))_{i}=(lambda nabla G(a))_{i}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
Finally,
$(nabla F(a))=(lambda nabla G(a))$.
answered Jan 16 at 17:18
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
6,27611320
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But $u$ could be in a different direction from $e^{(i)}$ though, no?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:20
$begingroup$
But here u is arbitrary so, it must satisfy any vector, in particular, $e^i$ too.
$endgroup$
– Mustang
Jan 16 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@javacoder $u$ can be written as a linear combination of the $e^{(i)}$, so the result follows immediately by linearity of the dot product.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 16 at 18:04
$begingroup$
The key here is in the use of the universal quantifier. $(nabla F(a)) cdot u=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$ for all $u$. The particular vectors $e^{(i)}$ are included in that "for all."
$endgroup$
– Brian Borchers
Jan 16 at 18:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If
$(nabla F(a)) cdot u= (lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$
for all unit vectors $u$, then in particular, we can consider the unit vector $u=e^{(i)}$ which has a one in the $i$th position and 0's elsewhere. The dot product of any vector with $e^{(i)}$ gives the $i$th component of that vector.
Thus
$(nabla F(a)) cdot e^{(i)}=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot e^{(i)}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
$(nabla F(a))_{i}=(lambda nabla G(a))_{i}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
Finally,
$(nabla F(a))=(lambda nabla G(a))$.
answered Jan 16 at 17:18
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
6,27611320
$endgroup$
If
$(nabla F(a)) cdot u= (lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$
for all unit vectors $u$, then in particular, we can consider the unit vector $u=e^{(i)}$ which has a one in the $i$th position and 0's elsewhere. The dot product of any vector with $e^{(i)}$ gives the $i$th component of that vector.
Thus
$(nabla F(a)) cdot e^{(i)}=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot e^{(i)}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
$(nabla F(a))_{i}=(lambda nabla G(a))_{i}$
for $i=1, 2, ldots, n$.
Finally,
$(nabla F(a))=(lambda nabla G(a))$.
answered Jan 16 at 17:18
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
6,27611320
edited Jan 16 at 18:12
answered Jan 16 at 17:18
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
6,27611320
answered Jan 16 at 17:18
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
6,27611320
answered Jan 16 at 17:18
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
6,27611320
6,27611320
$begingroup$
But $u$ could be in a different direction from $e^{(i)}$ though, no?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:20
$begingroup$
But here u is arbitrary so, it must satisfy any vector, in particular, $e^i$ too.
$endgroup$
– Mustang
Jan 16 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@javacoder $u$ can be written as a linear combination of the $e^{(i)}$, so the result follows immediately by linearity of the dot product.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 16 at 18:04
$begingroup$
The key here is in the use of the universal quantifier. $(nabla F(a)) cdot u=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$ for all $u$. The particular vectors $e^{(i)}$ are included in that "for all."
$endgroup$
– Brian Borchers
Jan 16 at 18:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
But $u$ could be in a different direction from $e^{(i)}$ though, no?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:20
$begingroup$
But here u is arbitrary so, it must satisfy any vector, in particular, $e^i$ too.
$endgroup$
– Mustang
Jan 16 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@javacoder $u$ can be written as a linear combination of the $e^{(i)}$, so the result follows immediately by linearity of the dot product.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 16 at 18:04
$begingroup$
The key here is in the use of the universal quantifier. $(nabla F(a)) cdot u=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$ for all $u$. The particular vectors $e^{(i)}$ are included in that "for all."
$endgroup$
– Brian Borchers
Jan 16 at 18:11
$begingroup$
But $u$ could be in a different direction from $e^{(i)}$ though, no?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:20
$begingroup$
But $u$ could be in a different direction from $e^{(i)}$ though, no?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:20
$begingroup$
But here u is arbitrary so, it must satisfy any vector, in particular, $e^i$ too.
$endgroup$
– Mustang
Jan 16 at 17:28
$begingroup$
But here u is arbitrary so, it must satisfy any vector, in particular, $e^i$ too.
$endgroup$
– Mustang
Jan 16 at 17:28
$begingroup$
@javacoder $u$ can be written as a linear combination of the $e^{(i)}$, so the result follows immediately by linearity of the dot product.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 16 at 18:04
$begingroup$
@javacoder $u$ can be written as a linear combination of the $e^{(i)}$, so the result follows immediately by linearity of the dot product.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 16 at 18:04
$begingroup$
The key here is in the use of the universal quantifier. $(nabla F(a)) cdot u=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$ for all $u$. The particular vectors $e^{(i)}$ are included in that "for all."
$endgroup$
– Brian Borchers
Jan 16 at 18:11
$begingroup$
The key here is in the use of the universal quantifier. $(nabla F(a)) cdot u=(lambda nabla G(a)) cdot u$ for all $u$. The particular vectors $e^{(i)}$ are included in that "for all."
$endgroup$
– Brian Borchers
Jan 16 at 18:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
one hint to understand is
in a finite dimensional space zero vector is the only vector orthogonal to all vectors
so from the last equation of your proof take the things in one side and use the above statement
answered Jan 16 at 17:14
Bijayan RayBijayan Ray
1511213
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
was it helpful?
$endgroup$
– Bijayan Ray
Jan 16 at 17:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
one hint to understand is
in a finite dimensional space zero vector is the only vector orthogonal to all vectors
so from the last equation of your proof take the things in one side and use the above statement
answered Jan 16 at 17:14
Bijayan RayBijayan Ray
1511213
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
was it helpful?
$endgroup$
– Bijayan Ray
Jan 16 at 17:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
one hint to understand is
in a finite dimensional space zero vector is the only vector orthogonal to all vectors
so from the last equation of your proof take the things in one side and use the above statement
answered Jan 16 at 17:14
Bijayan RayBijayan Ray
1511213
$endgroup$
one hint to understand is
in a finite dimensional space zero vector is the only vector orthogonal to all vectors
so from the last equation of your proof take the things in one side and use the above statement
answered Jan 16 at 17:14
Bijayan RayBijayan Ray
1511213
answered Jan 16 at 17:14
Bijayan RayBijayan Ray
1511213
answered Jan 16 at 17:14
Bijayan RayBijayan Ray
1511213
answered Jan 16 at 17:14
Bijayan RayBijayan Ray
1511213
1511213
$begingroup$
was it helpful?
$endgroup$
– Bijayan Ray
Jan 16 at 17:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
was it helpful?
$endgroup$
– Bijayan Ray
Jan 16 at 17:14
$begingroup$
was it helpful?
$endgroup$
– Bijayan Ray
Jan 16 at 17:14
$begingroup$
was it helpful?
$endgroup$
– Bijayan Ray
Jan 16 at 17:14
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3075987%2fproof-in-linear-algebra-calculus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Your "claim["is completely incomprehensible if you don't define things...
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Jan 16 at 17:08
$begingroup$
Okay, I'll add more details sorry about that.
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:10
$begingroup$
Added details, please check!
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:15
$begingroup$
Ignoring the specifics of the claim you are referring to... it appears your underlying question is "Why can we assert that for maps $A,B$ we have that $forall x~(Ax = Bx)$ implies $A=B$?" To see this, suppose to the contrary that $Aneq B$. Try to show then that this would imply that there is at least one $x$ for which $Axneq Bx$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Jan 16 at 17:17
$begingroup$
What else is there that I missed? Not everyone is capable of doing such things and be so aware of their math, not everyone's math is so strong. How about you stop being mean and ask and guide me for what is needed for your satisfaction to answer my question?
$endgroup$
– javacoder
Jan 16 at 17:30