2:16 PM
25

A Vandermonde-matrix is a matrix of this form: $$\begin{pmatrix} x_0^0 & \cdots & x_0^n \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ x_n^0 & \cdots & x_n^n \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{(n+1) \times (n+1)}$$. condition ☀ : $\forall i, j\in \{0, \dots, n\}: i\neq j \Rightarrow x_i \neq x_j$ Why are Vandermond...

41

This is not entirely dissimilar to the answer already posted by Chris Godsil, but I'll post this anyway, maybe it can provide slightly different angle for someone trying to understand this. We want to show that the matrix \begin{pmatrix} x_0^0 & \cdots & x_0^n \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ x... Sorry but I cannot understand where k arrived. Up until c_i \cdot v_i= its ok. But — Eric_ 5 mins ago @Eric_ I am not exactly sure which place you mean. Are you asking about the part after c_0v_0+c_1v_1+\dots+c_nv_n=\vec 0=(0,0,\dots,0)? Feel free to ping me in this chatroom and we can discuss this there - to avoid having a long comment thread here. — Martin Sleziak 22 secs ago > So let us assume that c_0v_0+c_1v_1+\dots+c_nv_n=\vec 0=(0,0,\dots,0), where v_j=(x_0^j,x_1^j,\dots,x_n^j) is the j-the column written as a vector and c_0,\dots,c_n\in\mathbb R. So we have c_0(x_0^0,x_1^0,\dots,x_n^0)+c_1(x_0^1,x_1^1,\dots,x_n^1)+\dots+c_n(x_0^n,x_1^n,\dots,x_n^n)=(0,0,\dots,0). This gives us n+1 equations - one for each coordinate. \begin{align*} c_0x_0^0+c_1x_0^1+c_2x_0^2+\dots+c_nx_0^n&=0\\ c_0x_1^0+c_1x_1^1+c_2x_1^2+\dots+c_nx_1^n&=0\\ &\vdots\\ c_0x_n^0+c_1x_n^1+c_2x_n^2+\dots+c_nx_n^n&=0 \end{align*} So we can write this in short asc_0x_k^0+c_1x_k^1+c_2x_k^2+\dots+c_nx_k^n=0$$for k=0,1,\dots,n. Naturally, x_k^0=1 and x_k^1=x_k, so this is the same as$$c_0+c_1x_k+c_2x_k^2+\dots+c_nx_k^n=0for k=0,1,\dots,n. @Eric_ In case this is what you're after - we have n+1 equations - one for each coordinate: \begin{align*} c_0x_0^0+c_1x_0^1+c_2x_0^2+\dots+c_nx_0^n&=0\\ c_0x_1^0+c_1x_1^1+c_2x_1^2+\dots+c_nx_1^n&=0\\ &\vdots\\ c_0x_n^0+c_1x_n^1+c_2x_n^2+\dots+c_nx_n^n&=0 \end{align*} So we can write this in short asc_0x_k^0+c_1x_k^1+c_2x_k^2+\dots+c_nx_k^n=0$$for k=0,1,\dots,n. (So k is just a notation used for an integer variable that runs through 0,1,\dots,n.) — Martin Sleziak 17 secs ago Hello. I will be reading your reply. 2:33 PM > Then we get on the k-th coordinate$$c_0+c_1x_k+c_2x_k^2+\dots+c_nx_k^n=0,
which means that $x_k$ is a root of the polynomial $p(x)=c_0+c_1x+c_2x^2+\dots+c_nx^n$
Yes. I just want to read exactly after to make sure I dont miss anything else
Well, I think my comment explains this part.
If have edited the post to add "for $k=0,1,\dots,n$".
Yes, thank you! It is all clear now :-)
I am glad to hear that. Have a nice day!