Additive Identity in Linear Algebra: V + 0 = V

  • Thread starter Thread starter tc_11
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
tc_11
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am new with linear algebra, and I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the 0 vector and the additive identity v + 0 = v, where 0 is the 0 vector.
If I had a 2x2 matrix, and v + w = C + (C^T)*D ... (where (C^T) is the transpose, v & w are vectors, and C & D are matrices)... would the additive identity hold? I feel like it wouldn't, because I don't see how it would be unique... but I think I may be wrong.. can someone please help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't make sense of your expression, how does adding two vectors get you a 2x2 matrix? Are you confusing something here, or am I the confused one?

Anyway, if the additive identity does not hold, you're not dealing with a vector space and all bets are off (as far as linear algebra is concerned). One of the requirements of a vector space V is that there exists an element \mathbf{0} \in V such that \mathbf{v} + \mathbf{0} = \mathbf{v} for all \mathbf{v} \in V.
 
That's what I'm trying to prove though, that the additive identity v + 0 = v does in fact hold, and if not it's not a vector space, but we have to test the axioms anyway to see which ones do hold.
Addition of 2 vectors in this problem translates to:
vector v := C (where C is a 2x2 matrix)
vector w:= D (where D is a 2x2 matix)
(v+w):= C + (C^T)D
so i would set up my equation as v + 0 =? v
C + (C^T)D =? C
 
If 0 is a 2x2 zero-matrix (the 0-vector you were referring to), then v + 0 = v, but 0 + v = 0, which can't hold for a vector space.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top