finding the basis and dimension of a set of complex polynomials?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to find the basis and dimension of the following set,
$$left{pin mathbb{C}[x,y] middle| xfrac{partial p}{partial x} + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = 2pright}$$
I saw that it looked kind of like the product rule so I tried polynomials like $p=xy$ which seemed to be apart of the set and more examples showed that any scalar multiple of this polynomial was apart of the set.
it makes sense why this is happening and i figure the set could be writen as $$left{pin mathbb{C}[x,y] middle| xfrac{partial p}{partial x} = yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = pright}$$
I saw that this was only ever true when $p$ was some multiple of $xy$, so this is equivalent to
$${pin mathbb{C}[x,y], lambda in mathbb{C} mid p=lambda xy }$$
so a spanning set is just the set ${xy}$ which is linearly independent and so the dimension of the set is 1.
Is this a sensible argument? I feel like I somehow missed something when reducing the set down cause I wasn't sure when i would use the fact it was the set of complex polynomials to be the set of complex polynomials.
linear-algebra polynomials partial-derivative
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to find the basis and dimension of the following set,
$$left{pin mathbb{C}[x,y] middle| xfrac{partial p}{partial x} + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = 2pright}$$
I saw that it looked kind of like the product rule so I tried polynomials like $p=xy$ which seemed to be apart of the set and more examples showed that any scalar multiple of this polynomial was apart of the set.
it makes sense why this is happening and i figure the set could be writen as $$left{pin mathbb{C}[x,y] middle| xfrac{partial p}{partial x} = yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = pright}$$
I saw that this was only ever true when $p$ was some multiple of $xy$, so this is equivalent to
$${pin mathbb{C}[x,y], lambda in mathbb{C} mid p=lambda xy }$$
so a spanning set is just the set ${xy}$ which is linearly independent and so the dimension of the set is 1.
Is this a sensible argument? I feel like I somehow missed something when reducing the set down cause I wasn't sure when i would use the fact it was the set of complex polynomials to be the set of complex polynomials.
linear-algebra polynomials partial-derivative
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to find the basis and dimension of the following set,
$$left{pin mathbb{C}[x,y] middle| xfrac{partial p}{partial x} + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = 2pright}$$
I saw that it looked kind of like the product rule so I tried polynomials like $p=xy$ which seemed to be apart of the set and more examples showed that any scalar multiple of this polynomial was apart of the set.
it makes sense why this is happening and i figure the set could be writen as $$left{pin mathbb{C}[x,y] middle| xfrac{partial p}{partial x} = yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = pright}$$
I saw that this was only ever true when $p$ was some multiple of $xy$, so this is equivalent to
$${pin mathbb{C}[x,y], lambda in mathbb{C} mid p=lambda xy }$$
so a spanning set is just the set ${xy}$ which is linearly independent and so the dimension of the set is 1.
Is this a sensible argument? I feel like I somehow missed something when reducing the set down cause I wasn't sure when i would use the fact it was the set of complex polynomials to be the set of complex polynomials.
linear-algebra polynomials partial-derivative
I want to find the basis and dimension of the following set,
$$left{pin mathbb{C}[x,y] middle| xfrac{partial p}{partial x} + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = 2pright}$$
I saw that it looked kind of like the product rule so I tried polynomials like $p=xy$ which seemed to be apart of the set and more examples showed that any scalar multiple of this polynomial was apart of the set.
it makes sense why this is happening and i figure the set could be writen as $$left{pin mathbb{C}[x,y] middle| xfrac{partial p}{partial x} = yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = pright}$$
I saw that this was only ever true when $p$ was some multiple of $xy$, so this is equivalent to
$${pin mathbb{C}[x,y], lambda in mathbb{C} mid p=lambda xy }$$
so a spanning set is just the set ${xy}$ which is linearly independent and so the dimension of the set is 1.
Is this a sensible argument? I feel like I somehow missed something when reducing the set down cause I wasn't sure when i would use the fact it was the set of complex polynomials to be the set of complex polynomials.
linear-algebra polynomials partial-derivative
linear-algebra polynomials partial-derivative
edited Nov 14 at 22:20
asked Nov 14 at 14:57
Questlove
15911
15911
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Since everything in sight is linear, it's a subspace, so indeed, any scalar multiple of any element is contained in it. Now, you just need to show that there's nothing other than scalar multiples of $xy$ in there.
So, if $p(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^ma_{ij}x^iy^j$, then $frac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^m ia_{ij}x^{i-1}y^{j}$ and $frac{partial p}{partial y}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m ja_{ij}x^{i}y^{j-1}$, so $xfrac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m (i+j)a_{ij}x^iy^j + a_{1,0}x + a_{0,1}y$.
So, if that's equal to $2p(x,y)$, then we have $a_{1,0} = 2a_{1,0}$ and $a_{0,1} = 2a_{0,1}$, so $a_{1,0} = a_{0,1} = 0$, and $a_{0,0} = 0$. Finally, for $i, j geq 1$, we have $(i + j)a_{ij} = 2a_{ij}$, so $a_{ij} = 0$ whenever $i + j neq 2$, so indeed, the only non-zero $a_{ij}$ is $a_{1,1}$, so indeed, $p$ lies in the linear span of $xy$.
Hi, thanks for the response, how do i check that no other polynomials satisfy the original condition?
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:20
That's exactly what I just did: I showed that if $p$ is a polynomial satsifying the original condition, then $p$ is a scalar multiple of $xy$.
– user3482749
Nov 14 at 16:27
right okay that makes sense sorry about that
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:30
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Since everything in sight is linear, it's a subspace, so indeed, any scalar multiple of any element is contained in it. Now, you just need to show that there's nothing other than scalar multiples of $xy$ in there.
So, if $p(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^ma_{ij}x^iy^j$, then $frac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^m ia_{ij}x^{i-1}y^{j}$ and $frac{partial p}{partial y}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m ja_{ij}x^{i}y^{j-1}$, so $xfrac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m (i+j)a_{ij}x^iy^j + a_{1,0}x + a_{0,1}y$.
So, if that's equal to $2p(x,y)$, then we have $a_{1,0} = 2a_{1,0}$ and $a_{0,1} = 2a_{0,1}$, so $a_{1,0} = a_{0,1} = 0$, and $a_{0,0} = 0$. Finally, for $i, j geq 1$, we have $(i + j)a_{ij} = 2a_{ij}$, so $a_{ij} = 0$ whenever $i + j neq 2$, so indeed, the only non-zero $a_{ij}$ is $a_{1,1}$, so indeed, $p$ lies in the linear span of $xy$.
Hi, thanks for the response, how do i check that no other polynomials satisfy the original condition?
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:20
That's exactly what I just did: I showed that if $p$ is a polynomial satsifying the original condition, then $p$ is a scalar multiple of $xy$.
– user3482749
Nov 14 at 16:27
right okay that makes sense sorry about that
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:30
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Since everything in sight is linear, it's a subspace, so indeed, any scalar multiple of any element is contained in it. Now, you just need to show that there's nothing other than scalar multiples of $xy$ in there.
So, if $p(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^ma_{ij}x^iy^j$, then $frac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^m ia_{ij}x^{i-1}y^{j}$ and $frac{partial p}{partial y}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m ja_{ij}x^{i}y^{j-1}$, so $xfrac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m (i+j)a_{ij}x^iy^j + a_{1,0}x + a_{0,1}y$.
So, if that's equal to $2p(x,y)$, then we have $a_{1,0} = 2a_{1,0}$ and $a_{0,1} = 2a_{0,1}$, so $a_{1,0} = a_{0,1} = 0$, and $a_{0,0} = 0$. Finally, for $i, j geq 1$, we have $(i + j)a_{ij} = 2a_{ij}$, so $a_{ij} = 0$ whenever $i + j neq 2$, so indeed, the only non-zero $a_{ij}$ is $a_{1,1}$, so indeed, $p$ lies in the linear span of $xy$.
Hi, thanks for the response, how do i check that no other polynomials satisfy the original condition?
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:20
That's exactly what I just did: I showed that if $p$ is a polynomial satsifying the original condition, then $p$ is a scalar multiple of $xy$.
– user3482749
Nov 14 at 16:27
right okay that makes sense sorry about that
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:30
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Since everything in sight is linear, it's a subspace, so indeed, any scalar multiple of any element is contained in it. Now, you just need to show that there's nothing other than scalar multiples of $xy$ in there.
So, if $p(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^ma_{ij}x^iy^j$, then $frac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^m ia_{ij}x^{i-1}y^{j}$ and $frac{partial p}{partial y}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m ja_{ij}x^{i}y^{j-1}$, so $xfrac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m (i+j)a_{ij}x^iy^j + a_{1,0}x + a_{0,1}y$.
So, if that's equal to $2p(x,y)$, then we have $a_{1,0} = 2a_{1,0}$ and $a_{0,1} = 2a_{0,1}$, so $a_{1,0} = a_{0,1} = 0$, and $a_{0,0} = 0$. Finally, for $i, j geq 1$, we have $(i + j)a_{ij} = 2a_{ij}$, so $a_{ij} = 0$ whenever $i + j neq 2$, so indeed, the only non-zero $a_{ij}$ is $a_{1,1}$, so indeed, $p$ lies in the linear span of $xy$.
Since everything in sight is linear, it's a subspace, so indeed, any scalar multiple of any element is contained in it. Now, you just need to show that there's nothing other than scalar multiples of $xy$ in there.
So, if $p(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^ma_{ij}x^iy^j$, then $frac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=0}^m ia_{ij}x^{i-1}y^{j}$ and $frac{partial p}{partial y}(x,y) = sumlimits_{i=0}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m ja_{ij}x^{i}y^{j-1}$, so $xfrac{partial p}{partial x}(x,y) + yfrac{partial p}{partial y} = sumlimits_{i=1}^nsumlimits_{j=1}^m (i+j)a_{ij}x^iy^j + a_{1,0}x + a_{0,1}y$.
So, if that's equal to $2p(x,y)$, then we have $a_{1,0} = 2a_{1,0}$ and $a_{0,1} = 2a_{0,1}$, so $a_{1,0} = a_{0,1} = 0$, and $a_{0,0} = 0$. Finally, for $i, j geq 1$, we have $(i + j)a_{ij} = 2a_{ij}$, so $a_{ij} = 0$ whenever $i + j neq 2$, so indeed, the only non-zero $a_{ij}$ is $a_{1,1}$, so indeed, $p$ lies in the linear span of $xy$.
answered Nov 14 at 15:25
user3482749
1,088411
1,088411
Hi, thanks for the response, how do i check that no other polynomials satisfy the original condition?
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:20
That's exactly what I just did: I showed that if $p$ is a polynomial satsifying the original condition, then $p$ is a scalar multiple of $xy$.
– user3482749
Nov 14 at 16:27
right okay that makes sense sorry about that
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:30
add a comment |
Hi, thanks for the response, how do i check that no other polynomials satisfy the original condition?
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:20
That's exactly what I just did: I showed that if $p$ is a polynomial satsifying the original condition, then $p$ is a scalar multiple of $xy$.
– user3482749
Nov 14 at 16:27
right okay that makes sense sorry about that
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:30
Hi, thanks for the response, how do i check that no other polynomials satisfy the original condition?
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:20
Hi, thanks for the response, how do i check that no other polynomials satisfy the original condition?
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:20
That's exactly what I just did: I showed that if $p$ is a polynomial satsifying the original condition, then $p$ is a scalar multiple of $xy$.
– user3482749
Nov 14 at 16:27
That's exactly what I just did: I showed that if $p$ is a polynomial satsifying the original condition, then $p$ is a scalar multiple of $xy$.
– user3482749
Nov 14 at 16:27
right okay that makes sense sorry about that
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:30
right okay that makes sense sorry about that
– Questlove
Nov 14 at 16:30
add a comment |
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%2f2998351%2ffinding-the-basis-and-dimension-of-a-set-of-complex-polynomials%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