Simple Notational Issue in Roman: "Advanced Linear Algebra"

In summary, Roman defines the direct product and the external direct sum of a family of vector spaces on page 41 as follows:The direct product is the vector product of two vectors, and the external direct sum is the vector sum of two vectors. K is not defined in these definitions, but it is usually understood to be the set of all real numbers.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading Steven Roman's book, Advanced Linear Algebra and am currently focussed on Chapter 1: Vector Spaces ... ...

I need help/clarification with respect to a notational issue regarding Roman's definition of the direct product and external direct sum of a family of vector spaces ... ...

Roman defines the direct product and the external direct sum of a family of vector spaces on page 41 as follows:View attachment 5088In the above definitions Roman does not define \(\displaystyle K\) ... nor as far as I can see, does he define it earlier in the book ...

... ... so my question is ... ... what is the exact nature of the set \(\displaystyle K\) ... can it be any set? ... looks like it should be something like \(\displaystyle \mathbb{N}\) ... but maybe it can be more general ...

Can someone please clarify this issue for me?

Hope someone can help ... help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes, $K$ can be any set, although for many applications, $K$ is the set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ or $\Bbb N$. More formally, $\mathcal{F}$ is a $K$-indexed family, with indexing set $K$.

While for finitely-indexed sets, it is unusual to use any OTHER index BUT $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, with infinite sets, it is often desirable to establish a correspondence with the indexing sets and the indexed sets, and infinite sets can be in one-to-one correspondence with sets that "look quite different" (for example, there exists a bijection between $\Bbb Q[x]$ and $\Bbb N$, via the axiom of choice).

This is more than just a "notational convenience", while countable indices can be satisfactorily be indicated by ellipses (the ''...") this is outright impossible with uncountable indexing sets.

It is not uncommon in functional analysis to consider the vector space $F^K$, for a field $F$, which can be given a vector space structure by using the operations of $F$. If $K = [a,b] \subseteq \Bbb R$, this is an uncountably indexed set (the $x$-th "coordinate", for $x \in [a,b]$ of a vector $f:[a,b] \to F$ is simply the value $f(x)$).
 
  • #3
Deveno said:
Yes, $K$ can be any set, although for many applications, $K$ is the set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ or $\Bbb N$. More formally, $\mathcal{F}$ is a $K$-indexed family, with indexing set $K$.

While for finitely-indexed sets, it is unusual to use any OTHER index BUT $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, with infinite sets, it is often desirable to establish a correspondence with the indexing sets and the indexed sets, and infinite sets can be in one-to-one correspondence with sets that "look quite different" (for example, there exists a bijection between $\Bbb Q[x]$ and $\Bbb N$, via the axiom of choice).

This is more than just a "notational convenience", while countable indices can be satisfactorily be indicated by ellipses (the ''...") this is outright impossible with uncountable indexing sets.

It is not uncommon in functional analysis to consider the vector space $F^K$, for a field $F$, which can be given a vector space structure by using the operations of $F$. If $K = [a,b] \subseteq \Bbb R$, this is an uncountably indexed set (the $x$-th "coordinate", for $x \in [a,b]$ of a vector $f:[a,b] \to F$ is simply the value $f(x)$).
Thanks Deveno ... very much appreciate your assistance ...

Reflecting on what you have said ... and the implications of what you have said ...

Peter
 

Related to Simple Notational Issue in Roman: "Advanced Linear Algebra"

What is "Simple Notational Issue in Roman: "Advanced Linear Algebra"?

"Simple Notational Issue in Roman: "Advanced Linear Algebra" refers to a common problem in mathematical notation where certain symbols and equations are written using Roman letters instead of the more standard Greek letters. This can lead to confusion and errors in understanding and solving advanced linear algebra problems."

Why is it important to address this issue?

This issue is important to address because using the correct notation is crucial in mathematics, especially in advanced topics like linear algebra. Using inconsistent or incorrect notation can lead to misunderstandings and incorrect solutions, which can have serious consequences in real-life applications.

What are some common examples of this problem in linear algebra?

Some common examples include using "I" to represent the identity matrix instead of the standard "I_n", using "A" to represent a matrix instead of the standard boldface "A", and using "u" and "v" to represent vectors instead of the standard boldface "u" and "v".

How can this issue be addressed?

This issue can be addressed by consistently using the standard notation for linear algebra, which can be found in most linear algebra textbooks. It is also important to communicate and clarify any notation differences with collaborators or readers to avoid confusion.

Are there any exceptions to using standard notation in linear algebra?

In some cases, authors may use non-standard notation for convenience or to illustrate a specific concept. However, it is important to clearly explain any deviations from the standard notation to avoid confusion and ensure accurate understanding of the material.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
10
Views
427
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
18
Views
414
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
369
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
948
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top