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.










share|cite|improve this question




























    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.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      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.










      share|cite|improve this question















      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 14 at 22:20

























      asked Nov 14 at 14:57









      Questlove

      15911




      15911






















          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 $xy$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • 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











          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',
          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%2f2998351%2ffinding-the-basis-and-dimension-of-a-set-of-complex-polynomials%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          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 $xy$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • 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















          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 $xy$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • 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













          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 $xy$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          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 $xy$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          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


















          • 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


















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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

          Index of /

          Tribalistas

          Listed building