Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is {sinhx,cosh,e^x,1} linearly independent watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i think that sinhx and coshx are linearly independent and also that sinhx, coshx and e^x are too. But I'm not sure how to prove that all four sinhx,coshx, e^x and 1 are linearly independent?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    15
    Study Helper
    (Original post by hannnahx)
    i think that sinhx and coshx are linearly independent and also that sinhx, coshx and e^x are too.
    In bold: Are you just guessing? I suspect so.

    How do you show a set is linearly independent? What's your definition?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hannnahx)
    i think that sinhx and coshx are linearly independent and also that sinhx, coshx and e^x are too. But I'm not sure how to prove that all four sinhx,coshx, e^x and 1 are linearly independent?
    if it works like vectors ( if my memory serves me well ) then

    Acoshx + Bsinhx + Cex +D = 0

    they are linearly independent if the only way you can satisfy this relationship is iff A=B=C=D=0

    is this the case here?
    find a counterexample and you proved linear dependence

    wait for the purists
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hannnahx)
    i think that sinhx and coshx are linearly independent and also that sinhx, coshx and e^x are too. But I'm not sure how to prove that all four sinhx,coshx, e^x and 1 are linearly independent?
    You probably want to use the Wronskian. This is a determinant whose form you can google. Its rows are formed by the functions, and the first, second, etc derivatives of the functions.

    If the Wronskian is non-zero for some x \in D where D is the domain of the functions, then the functions are linearly independent. (The converse is not true; if the Wronskian is identically zero over the domain, you can't conclude that the functions are linearly dependent BUT SEE BELOW)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghostwalker)
    In bold: Are you just guessing? I suspect so.
    Given that e^{-x} is not there, it looks right, I think.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    15
    Study Helper
    (Original post by atsruser)
    Given that e^{-x} is not there, it looks right, I think.
    I don't see the problem - perhaps there's a definition of linearly independence that I'm not aware of, particularly as you talk about using the Wronskian.

    Edit: Just did a bit of digging, and first and third rows of the Wronskian would be identical, hence it's zero for all x. Or have I misunderstood?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghostwalker)
    I don't see the problem - perhaps there's a definition of linearly independence that I'm not aware of, particularly as you talk about using the Wronskian.
    No, your hint was right. I managed to forget cosh was there too. Sorry. In fact, you can still use the Wronskian but it requires an extra condition to be true to show l.i. and it's probably easier just to do it from the definition (of which there is only one, of course.)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghostwalker)
    I don't see the problem - perhaps there's a definition of linearly independence that I'm not aware of, particularly as you talk about using the Wronskian.

    Edit: Just did a bit of digging, and first and third rows of the Wronskian would be identical, hence it's zero for all x. Or have I misunderstood?
    I don't know. If you are thinking that you can claim l.d. from that, then you can't. However, I've just done a bit of digging too, and discovered that if the functions are analytic and the Wronskian is identically zero, then that condition guarantees l.d. I was aware of another condition. So I think here, the Wronskian works fine to show l.d.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    15
    Study Helper
    (Original post by atsruser)
    I don't know. If you are thinking that you can claim l.d. from that, then you can't. However, I've just done a bit of digging too, and discovered that if the functions are analytic and the Wronskian is identically zero, then that condition guarantees l.d. I was aware of another condition. So I think here, the Wronskian works fine to show l.d.
    Thanks. I'm not familiar with the finer points of the Wronskian and as such wouldn't use it. I looked as you mentioned it. However, all's well.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    they are linearly independent if the only way you can satisfy this relationship is iff A=B=C=D=0
    Careful -- the implication does not go both ways. Otherwise, every system would be linearly independent.

    The Wronskian also seems excessive here: sinh and cosh are linear combinations of e^x and e^(-x). What happens when you add them?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zhy)
    Careful -- the implication does not go both ways. Otherwise, every system would be linearly independent.

    The Wronskian also seems excessive here: sinh and cosh are linear combinations of e^x and e^(-x). What happens when you add them?
    thank you
    I will try to be careful in the future
    (definitely will not use the Wronskian)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    You probably want to use the Wronskian. This is a determinant whose form you can google. Its rows are formed by the functions, and the first, second, etc derivatives of the functions.
    I feel I have to say that for *this* question, that's a sledgehammer - a few seconds of thought should suffice.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    I feel I have to say that for *this* question, that's a sledgehammer - a few seconds of thought should suffice.
    You are right in this case. But it's useful to know about the Wronskian anyway, for it is a mighty sledgehammer.

    I think that we've scared off the OP though.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: October 25, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.