When asked to find the basis of the row space of a matrix, what's the point of reducing the matrix? Row...












0












$begingroup$


If matrix A is row equivalent to matrix B, then row(A) = row(B). This is because the row space of A is just the span of the row vectors of A. The rows of B are a linear combination of the rows of A, so the rows of B lie within the row space of A. And vice versa. Therefore row(A) = row(B)



So why is it that whenever I see a problem asking me to find a basis of the row space of a matrix, the matrix is reduced? Can't you just take the rows of the matrix as they are, and say that those row vectors make up a basis? What's the point of row reducing first?



Side question, whenever you're asked for a basis, would it not be valid to just give the unit vectors of that dimension?



Any help is appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    If matrix A is row equivalent to matrix B, then row(A) = row(B). This is because the row space of A is just the span of the row vectors of A. The rows of B are a linear combination of the rows of A, so the rows of B lie within the row space of A. And vice versa. Therefore row(A) = row(B)



    So why is it that whenever I see a problem asking me to find a basis of the row space of a matrix, the matrix is reduced? Can't you just take the rows of the matrix as they are, and say that those row vectors make up a basis? What's the point of row reducing first?



    Side question, whenever you're asked for a basis, would it not be valid to just give the unit vectors of that dimension?



    Any help is appreciated.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      If matrix A is row equivalent to matrix B, then row(A) = row(B). This is because the row space of A is just the span of the row vectors of A. The rows of B are a linear combination of the rows of A, so the rows of B lie within the row space of A. And vice versa. Therefore row(A) = row(B)



      So why is it that whenever I see a problem asking me to find a basis of the row space of a matrix, the matrix is reduced? Can't you just take the rows of the matrix as they are, and say that those row vectors make up a basis? What's the point of row reducing first?



      Side question, whenever you're asked for a basis, would it not be valid to just give the unit vectors of that dimension?



      Any help is appreciated.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      If matrix A is row equivalent to matrix B, then row(A) = row(B). This is because the row space of A is just the span of the row vectors of A. The rows of B are a linear combination of the rows of A, so the rows of B lie within the row space of A. And vice versa. Therefore row(A) = row(B)



      So why is it that whenever I see a problem asking me to find a basis of the row space of a matrix, the matrix is reduced? Can't you just take the rows of the matrix as they are, and say that those row vectors make up a basis? What's the point of row reducing first?



      Side question, whenever you're asked for a basis, would it not be valid to just give the unit vectors of that dimension?



      Any help is appreciated.







      linear-algebra matrices vector-spaces






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 4 '18 at 16:33







      James Ronald

















      asked Dec 4 '18 at 16:27









      James RonaldJames Ronald

      957




      957






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Yes, the rows of $A$ span the row space of $A$. So what? A basis is an independent spanning set, and the rows of $A$ need not be independent.



          But if $B$ is an echelon form for $A$ then the rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, as you point out; hence the non-zero rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, and also the non-zero rows of $B$ are independent.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            0












            $begingroup$

            What if the matrix has $5$ rows but the row space only has $3$ dimensions?



            Given an arbitrary $5times 5$ matrix,
            how can you be sure that the matrix's row space really has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis?





            NOTE: When I wrote "has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis", I assumed you were aware that a set of five vectors in a five-dimensional vector space does not necessarily span the entire five-dimensional space, but might span a subspace of fewer dimensions,
            and also that the number of vectors in any basis of that subspace is exactly equal to the number of dimensions of the subspace.



            Regarding the side question, of course you can name a basis of a subspace using unit vectors as the basis.
            If you are dealing with a proper subspace of a vector space
            (i.e. the subspace is not equal to the whole vector space), however,
            there is no guarantee that any of the vectors $(1,0,0,0,0),$ $(0,1,0,0,0),$
            $(0,0,1,0,0),$ etc. will be in the subspace.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for the response. With your example, it's likely that 2 of the 5 row vectors in the 5x5 matrix are linearly dependent on the other row vectors. I'm guessing that it'll always turn out this way: there will always be the exactly correct amount of vectors required in the row space, nothing more or less. So using this fact, could I not apply what I described originally (just taking the row vectors as-is)?
              $endgroup$
              – James Ronald
              Dec 4 '18 at 16:36








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @JamesRonald It’s not just likely, but it’s certain that two of the rows can be written as linear combinations of the other three. And, no, you can’t take the row vectors “as is” because a basis must consist of linearly independent vectors. You would do well to review those basic definitions.
              $endgroup$
              – amd
              Dec 4 '18 at 17:25












            • $begingroup$
              The closest you can get to obtaining a basis by your "take the rows as they are" strategy would be to take a linearly independent subset of the rows that suffices to span all the other rows. But it's not obvious how to find such a subset.
              $endgroup$
              – Andreas Blass
              Dec 4 '18 at 18:05











            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025783%2fwhen-asked-to-find-the-basis-of-the-row-space-of-a-matrix-whats-the-point-of-r%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









            1












            $begingroup$

            Yes, the rows of $A$ span the row space of $A$. So what? A basis is an independent spanning set, and the rows of $A$ need not be independent.



            But if $B$ is an echelon form for $A$ then the rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, as you point out; hence the non-zero rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, and also the non-zero rows of $B$ are independent.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              Yes, the rows of $A$ span the row space of $A$. So what? A basis is an independent spanning set, and the rows of $A$ need not be independent.



              But if $B$ is an echelon form for $A$ then the rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, as you point out; hence the non-zero rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, and also the non-zero rows of $B$ are independent.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                Yes, the rows of $A$ span the row space of $A$. So what? A basis is an independent spanning set, and the rows of $A$ need not be independent.



                But if $B$ is an echelon form for $A$ then the rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, as you point out; hence the non-zero rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, and also the non-zero rows of $B$ are independent.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Yes, the rows of $A$ span the row space of $A$. So what? A basis is an independent spanning set, and the rows of $A$ need not be independent.



                But if $B$ is an echelon form for $A$ then the rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, as you point out; hence the non-zero rows of $B$ span the row space of $A$, and also the non-zero rows of $B$ are independent.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 4 '18 at 16:40









                David C. UllrichDavid C. Ullrich

                59.3k43893




                59.3k43893























                    0












                    $begingroup$

                    What if the matrix has $5$ rows but the row space only has $3$ dimensions?



                    Given an arbitrary $5times 5$ matrix,
                    how can you be sure that the matrix's row space really has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis?





                    NOTE: When I wrote "has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis", I assumed you were aware that a set of five vectors in a five-dimensional vector space does not necessarily span the entire five-dimensional space, but might span a subspace of fewer dimensions,
                    and also that the number of vectors in any basis of that subspace is exactly equal to the number of dimensions of the subspace.



                    Regarding the side question, of course you can name a basis of a subspace using unit vectors as the basis.
                    If you are dealing with a proper subspace of a vector space
                    (i.e. the subspace is not equal to the whole vector space), however,
                    there is no guarantee that any of the vectors $(1,0,0,0,0),$ $(0,1,0,0,0),$
                    $(0,0,1,0,0),$ etc. will be in the subspace.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$













                    • $begingroup$
                      Thank you for the response. With your example, it's likely that 2 of the 5 row vectors in the 5x5 matrix are linearly dependent on the other row vectors. I'm guessing that it'll always turn out this way: there will always be the exactly correct amount of vectors required in the row space, nothing more or less. So using this fact, could I not apply what I described originally (just taking the row vectors as-is)?
                      $endgroup$
                      – James Ronald
                      Dec 4 '18 at 16:36








                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      @JamesRonald It’s not just likely, but it’s certain that two of the rows can be written as linear combinations of the other three. And, no, you can’t take the row vectors “as is” because a basis must consist of linearly independent vectors. You would do well to review those basic definitions.
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Dec 4 '18 at 17:25












                    • $begingroup$
                      The closest you can get to obtaining a basis by your "take the rows as they are" strategy would be to take a linearly independent subset of the rows that suffices to span all the other rows. But it's not obvious how to find such a subset.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Andreas Blass
                      Dec 4 '18 at 18:05
















                    0












                    $begingroup$

                    What if the matrix has $5$ rows but the row space only has $3$ dimensions?



                    Given an arbitrary $5times 5$ matrix,
                    how can you be sure that the matrix's row space really has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis?





                    NOTE: When I wrote "has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis", I assumed you were aware that a set of five vectors in a five-dimensional vector space does not necessarily span the entire five-dimensional space, but might span a subspace of fewer dimensions,
                    and also that the number of vectors in any basis of that subspace is exactly equal to the number of dimensions of the subspace.



                    Regarding the side question, of course you can name a basis of a subspace using unit vectors as the basis.
                    If you are dealing with a proper subspace of a vector space
                    (i.e. the subspace is not equal to the whole vector space), however,
                    there is no guarantee that any of the vectors $(1,0,0,0,0),$ $(0,1,0,0,0),$
                    $(0,0,1,0,0),$ etc. will be in the subspace.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$













                    • $begingroup$
                      Thank you for the response. With your example, it's likely that 2 of the 5 row vectors in the 5x5 matrix are linearly dependent on the other row vectors. I'm guessing that it'll always turn out this way: there will always be the exactly correct amount of vectors required in the row space, nothing more or less. So using this fact, could I not apply what I described originally (just taking the row vectors as-is)?
                      $endgroup$
                      – James Ronald
                      Dec 4 '18 at 16:36








                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      @JamesRonald It’s not just likely, but it’s certain that two of the rows can be written as linear combinations of the other three. And, no, you can’t take the row vectors “as is” because a basis must consist of linearly independent vectors. You would do well to review those basic definitions.
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Dec 4 '18 at 17:25












                    • $begingroup$
                      The closest you can get to obtaining a basis by your "take the rows as they are" strategy would be to take a linearly independent subset of the rows that suffices to span all the other rows. But it's not obvious how to find such a subset.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Andreas Blass
                      Dec 4 '18 at 18:05














                    0












                    0








                    0





                    $begingroup$

                    What if the matrix has $5$ rows but the row space only has $3$ dimensions?



                    Given an arbitrary $5times 5$ matrix,
                    how can you be sure that the matrix's row space really has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis?





                    NOTE: When I wrote "has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis", I assumed you were aware that a set of five vectors in a five-dimensional vector space does not necessarily span the entire five-dimensional space, but might span a subspace of fewer dimensions,
                    and also that the number of vectors in any basis of that subspace is exactly equal to the number of dimensions of the subspace.



                    Regarding the side question, of course you can name a basis of a subspace using unit vectors as the basis.
                    If you are dealing with a proper subspace of a vector space
                    (i.e. the subspace is not equal to the whole vector space), however,
                    there is no guarantee that any of the vectors $(1,0,0,0,0),$ $(0,1,0,0,0),$
                    $(0,0,1,0,0),$ etc. will be in the subspace.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    What if the matrix has $5$ rows but the row space only has $3$ dimensions?



                    Given an arbitrary $5times 5$ matrix,
                    how can you be sure that the matrix's row space really has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis?





                    NOTE: When I wrote "has $5$ dimensions, and therefore has five vectors in its basis", I assumed you were aware that a set of five vectors in a five-dimensional vector space does not necessarily span the entire five-dimensional space, but might span a subspace of fewer dimensions,
                    and also that the number of vectors in any basis of that subspace is exactly equal to the number of dimensions of the subspace.



                    Regarding the side question, of course you can name a basis of a subspace using unit vectors as the basis.
                    If you are dealing with a proper subspace of a vector space
                    (i.e. the subspace is not equal to the whole vector space), however,
                    there is no guarantee that any of the vectors $(1,0,0,0,0),$ $(0,1,0,0,0),$
                    $(0,0,1,0,0),$ etc. will be in the subspace.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 4 '18 at 18:56

























                    answered Dec 4 '18 at 16:32









                    David KDavid K

                    52.8k340115




                    52.8k340115












                    • $begingroup$
                      Thank you for the response. With your example, it's likely that 2 of the 5 row vectors in the 5x5 matrix are linearly dependent on the other row vectors. I'm guessing that it'll always turn out this way: there will always be the exactly correct amount of vectors required in the row space, nothing more or less. So using this fact, could I not apply what I described originally (just taking the row vectors as-is)?
                      $endgroup$
                      – James Ronald
                      Dec 4 '18 at 16:36








                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      @JamesRonald It’s not just likely, but it’s certain that two of the rows can be written as linear combinations of the other three. And, no, you can’t take the row vectors “as is” because a basis must consist of linearly independent vectors. You would do well to review those basic definitions.
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Dec 4 '18 at 17:25












                    • $begingroup$
                      The closest you can get to obtaining a basis by your "take the rows as they are" strategy would be to take a linearly independent subset of the rows that suffices to span all the other rows. But it's not obvious how to find such a subset.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Andreas Blass
                      Dec 4 '18 at 18:05


















                    • $begingroup$
                      Thank you for the response. With your example, it's likely that 2 of the 5 row vectors in the 5x5 matrix are linearly dependent on the other row vectors. I'm guessing that it'll always turn out this way: there will always be the exactly correct amount of vectors required in the row space, nothing more or less. So using this fact, could I not apply what I described originally (just taking the row vectors as-is)?
                      $endgroup$
                      – James Ronald
                      Dec 4 '18 at 16:36








                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      @JamesRonald It’s not just likely, but it’s certain that two of the rows can be written as linear combinations of the other three. And, no, you can’t take the row vectors “as is” because a basis must consist of linearly independent vectors. You would do well to review those basic definitions.
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Dec 4 '18 at 17:25












                    • $begingroup$
                      The closest you can get to obtaining a basis by your "take the rows as they are" strategy would be to take a linearly independent subset of the rows that suffices to span all the other rows. But it's not obvious how to find such a subset.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Andreas Blass
                      Dec 4 '18 at 18:05
















                    $begingroup$
                    Thank you for the response. With your example, it's likely that 2 of the 5 row vectors in the 5x5 matrix are linearly dependent on the other row vectors. I'm guessing that it'll always turn out this way: there will always be the exactly correct amount of vectors required in the row space, nothing more or less. So using this fact, could I not apply what I described originally (just taking the row vectors as-is)?
                    $endgroup$
                    – James Ronald
                    Dec 4 '18 at 16:36






                    $begingroup$
                    Thank you for the response. With your example, it's likely that 2 of the 5 row vectors in the 5x5 matrix are linearly dependent on the other row vectors. I'm guessing that it'll always turn out this way: there will always be the exactly correct amount of vectors required in the row space, nothing more or less. So using this fact, could I not apply what I described originally (just taking the row vectors as-is)?
                    $endgroup$
                    – James Ronald
                    Dec 4 '18 at 16:36






                    2




                    2




                    $begingroup$
                    @JamesRonald It’s not just likely, but it’s certain that two of the rows can be written as linear combinations of the other three. And, no, you can’t take the row vectors “as is” because a basis must consist of linearly independent vectors. You would do well to review those basic definitions.
                    $endgroup$
                    – amd
                    Dec 4 '18 at 17:25






                    $begingroup$
                    @JamesRonald It’s not just likely, but it’s certain that two of the rows can be written as linear combinations of the other three. And, no, you can’t take the row vectors “as is” because a basis must consist of linearly independent vectors. You would do well to review those basic definitions.
                    $endgroup$
                    – amd
                    Dec 4 '18 at 17:25














                    $begingroup$
                    The closest you can get to obtaining a basis by your "take the rows as they are" strategy would be to take a linearly independent subset of the rows that suffices to span all the other rows. But it's not obvious how to find such a subset.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Andreas Blass
                    Dec 4 '18 at 18:05




                    $begingroup$
                    The closest you can get to obtaining a basis by your "take the rows as they are" strategy would be to take a linearly independent subset of the rows that suffices to span all the other rows. But it's not obvious how to find such a subset.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Andreas Blass
                    Dec 4 '18 at 18:05


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025783%2fwhen-asked-to-find-the-basis-of-the-row-space-of-a-matrix-whats-the-point-of-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Wiesbaden

                    Marschland

                    Dieringhausen