Another infinite-dimensional basis question using transfinite induction

In summary, In transfinite induction, if I is a linearly independent set and G is a set of generators (a spanning set) of an infinite-dimensional vector space V, with I c G, then there exists a basis B for V such that I c B c G.
  • #1
andytoh
359
3
My recent interest in using transfinite induction in linear algebra has led me to pose a new question. (I will use c for the subset symbol)

Question: Use transfinite induction (not Zorn's lemma) to prove that if I is a linearly independent set and G is a set of generators (a spanning set) of an infinite-dimensional vector space V, with I c G, then there exists a basis B for V such that I c B c G.

There are not enough transfinite induction exercises in my set theory and topology textbooks so I had to pose this transfinite induction question myself. I'll give it a go:

Well-order G. Let A be the set of all vectors in G such that there exists a linearly independent set K where I c K c G and A c span(K) . A is non-empty since I c A, and thus there exists such a K. Suppose that the section S_v is a subset of A for some v in G. If v belongs to span(K), then by definition v belongs to A. If instead v does not belong to span(K), then KU{v} is a linearly independent set in V. Now I c KU{v} c G since I c K c G and v is in G. Furthermore,
AU{v} c span(KU{v}) since A c span(K). Thus v is in A. Thus A is an inductive subset of G. By the principle of transfinite induction, we have A = G. Consequently, there exists a linearly independent set B where I c B c G and G c span(B). So then V = span(G) c span(span(B)) = span(B), so that B is a basis for V.

How does this look?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
andytoh said:
Well-order G. Let A be the set of all vectors in G such that there exists a linearly independent set K where I c K c G and A c span(K) . A is non-empty since I c A, and thus there exists such a K (which may be I itself).
Why is A c span(K)?
 
  • #3
morphism said:
Why is A c span(K)?
I'm defining my A to have this property, and I'm trying to show that A=G by transfinite induction. I started by saying that A is non-empty because I itself has the property of A (hence such a linearly independent set K exists).

If there is an easier subset property of A, where A is the subset of G (or perhaps we shouldn't use G?) that we want to show is an inductive subset, I'm happy to consider it. But in order to use transfinite induction, we have to define some kind of property of some kind of set (this step I think is the toughest part).
 
Last edited:
  • #4
My problem was with how you proved that A is non-empty. The way you defined it, having A contain I isn't enough (why is A in span(I)?). We want A to be in the span of a linearly independent set. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think the way you're defining A is very useful.

To be honest I don't think transfinite induction is going to be a very fruitful approach here, at least not if you plan to induct 'upwards' from I to G. Maybe you should try to use an inductive argument to collapse G towards I. At least here you have something to work with, e.g. if G isn't independent, then we can throw out a vector.
 
  • #5
I figured that since I c I c G and I c span(I), then we have at least A=I, so A is not empty. Let me think about this more...

morphism said:
To be honest I don't think transfinite induction is going to be a very fruitful approach here, at least not if you plan to induct 'upwards' from I to G. Maybe you should try to use an inductive argument to collapse G towards I. At least here you have something to work with, e.g. if G isn't independent, then we can throw out a vector.
Zorn's Lemma is the best approach, but that's already been done in textbooks (and by many students) so I want to try using transfinite induction here for extra practice. I'll consider your collapsing approach too (I enjoy doing multiple solutions to good problems).
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Sticking with my original approach, perhaps I should define my A to be a subset of G-I instead of G. Then A is not empty because any element of G in span(I)-I is in A. I believe the conclusion that A=G-I will also get the job done (after some further explanations).
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Well-order G-I. Let A be the set of all vectors in G-I such that there exists a subset K c G, where I U K is a linearly independent subset of G and A c span(I U K). A is non-empty since any vector in G in span(I)-I is in A, and thus there exists such a K (K can be the empty set!). Suppose that the section S_v is a subset of A for some v in G-I. If v belongs to span(I U K), then by definition v belongs to A. If instead v does not belong to span(I U K), then I U K U {v} is a linearly independent subset of G. Now A U {v} c span(I U K U {v}) since A c span(I U K). Thus v is in A. Thus A is an inductive subset of G-I. By the principle of transfinite induction, we have
A = G-I. Consequently, there exists a subset K of G such that I U K is a linearly independent subset of G and (G-I) c span(I U K), which also means that
G c span(I U K). So then V = span(G) c span(span(I U K)) = span(I U K), so that I U K is a basis for V, with I c (I U K) c G.

Because K can be the empty set, I believe this works now. I will try your "collapsing" approach now.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
It turns out the "collapsing" approach follows the same pattern as my original "lifting" method, with apparently no advantage of one method over the other.
 

1. What is transfinite induction?

Transfinite induction is a mathematical technique used to prove statements about infinite sets. It is based on the notion that if a statement is true for all previous elements in a set, then it must also be true for the next element.

2. How is transfinite induction used in infinite-dimensional bases?

Infinite-dimensional bases are sets of vectors that span an infinite-dimensional vector space. Transfinite induction is used to show that any vector in the space can be expressed as a linear combination of the elements in the basis.

3. Can transfinite induction be used for any infinite set?

Transfinite induction can only be used for well-ordered sets, which are sets where every non-empty subset has a least element. This includes many infinite sets, such as the natural numbers and the ordinals, but not all infinite sets.

4. What is the difference between transfinite induction and regular induction?

Regular induction is used for finite sets, while transfinite induction is used for infinite sets. In regular induction, we prove a statement for each element in a set, starting from the lowest element and working our way up. In transfinite induction, we prove a statement for each element in a well-ordered set, starting from the previous elements and moving to the next.

5. What are some applications of transfinite induction?

Transfinite induction is used in various branches of mathematics, including set theory, topology, and analysis. It is also used in computer science and theoretical physics. Some specific applications include proving the existence of solutions to certain equations and showing that certain structures have unique properties.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
147
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
9
Views
191
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
889
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
939
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
963
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top