Understanding θv + βw = 0

[Admin]

Understanding θv + βw = 0
byu/DigitalSplendid inlearnmath

Comment
byu/DigitalSplendid from discussion
inlearnmath

Comment
byu/DigitalSplendid from discussion
inlearnmath

Comment
byu/DigitalSplendid from discussion
inlearnmath

“Understanding ( \theta v + \beta w = 0 ): Linear Equations, Vectors, and Parallelism Explained”

Disclaimer: This article was created with the assistance of an AI language model and is intended for informational purposes only. Please verify any technical details before implementation.

It seems you’re trying to draw an analogy between the equation ( 4x + 9y = 67 ) and the vector equation ( \theta v + \beta w = 0 ), and you’re exploring how to understand the solution logic for both.

Here’s a breakdown to address your question:

1. System of Linear Equations (e.g., ( 4x + 9y = 67 ) and ( x + 6y = 6 )):

For a system of two linear equations, such as:

[
4x + 9y = 67
]
[
x + 6y = 6
]

If the lines represented by these equations are not parallel, they will intersect at exactly one point (the solution to the system). In that case, you can solve for the values of ( x ) and ( y ).

However, if the lines are parallel, there would be no intersection (no solution) or infinitely many solutions if the lines are coincident (i.e., they represent the same line).

In your example, the logic of deducing a third equation, like ( 3x – 3y = 61 ), seems to come from a manipulation of the given equations to find relationships between ( x ) and ( y ).

2. Vector Equation (e.g., ( \theta v + \beta w = 0 )):

For the vector equation ( \theta v + \beta w = 0 ), where ( \theta ) and ( \beta ) are scalars and ( v ) and ( w ) are vectors, the situation is similar to the system of equations above, but in a higher-dimensional space.

• If ( v ) and ( w ) are not parallel (i.e., they are linearly independent), the only solution to ( \theta v + \beta w = 0 ) is ( \theta = \beta = 0 ). This is analogous to having a unique solution at the point of intersection.

• If ( v ) and ( w ) are parallel (i.e., they are scalar multiples of each other), then ( \theta v + \beta w = 0 ) will have infinite solutions because any scalar multiple of ( v ) can be balanced by a corresponding scalar multiple of ( w ). This is analogous to the case where the two lines (equations) in the system are coincident (i.e., they overlap completely).

3. About Changing the Sign (e.g., ( \theta v + \beta w = 0 ) to ( \theta v + t w = 0 ) where ( t = -\beta )):

Yes, the logic of changing the sign is valid. If you write ( \theta v + \beta w = 0 ) and then replace ( \beta ) with ( -t ), you get ( \theta v + (-t) w = 0 ) or ( \theta v + t w = 0 ). This is just a substitution, and mathematically the relationship between the vectors doesn’t change, as long as ( t = -\beta ).

In conclusion, the logic you’re applying to both the system of equations and the vector equation is quite similar: intersecting at a point (unique solution) for non-parallel vectors (or lines), and infinite solutions for parallel vectors (or coincident lines). The negative scalar change simply rephrases the relationship without altering the solution space.

[Author]

Posts