Am I the only one that finds this funny?

  • Thread starter 1MileCrash
  • Start date
  • #1
1,331
45

Main Question or Discussion Point

Is this really worthy of being pointed out as a corollary??
 

Attachments

Answers and Replies

  • #2
144
1
Oops. It's just the contrapositive. Then no, it's not worthy of being a corollary.
 
  • #3
fluidistic
Gold Member
3,663
106
If it follows from the theorem 1.6 then why not? :) Not really funny to me.
 
  • #5
144
1
Are you sure? :wink:
I misread it, thought that the corollary was about dependance too. :redface:
 
  • #6
1,331
45
I misread it, thought that the corollary was about dependance too. :redface:
Hah, I don't blame you. I had to do a double (or triple) take.

Though, interestingly enough, if the corollary was about dependence, then that would mean (S1 dependent) <=> (S2 dependent), which would mean that any subset or superset of any linearly dependent set would be linearly dependent. Which would mean that all subsets of a vector space would be linearly dependent, because all vector spaces must contain some linearly dependent subset (namely itself) (unless I'm just confusing myself here!)
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,750
99
That's true, but not for the reason that you seem to be thinking. Every vector space contains 0, and therefore is a linearly dependent set, but if you remove that point you could have a linearly independent set. For example (and probably the only example), F2 the field of two elements, as a one dimensional vector space over itself.
 
  • #8
1,331
45
That's true, but not for the reason that you seem to be thinking. Every vector space contains 0, and therefore is a linearly dependent set, but if you remove that point you could have a linearly independent set. For example (and probably the only example), F2 the field of two elements, as a one dimensional vector space over itself.
I'm saying - if the corollary was talking about dependence, a consequence would be that any subset of a vector space is linearly dependent because the vector space itself is.
 
  • #9
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
291
I think it's not just to "point it out", but ask you to prove both results from first principles, to get used to making proofs about linear dependence and independence.
 
  • #10
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
Is this really worthy of being pointed out as a corollary??
Wait. Why? Because there's two extra commas in there?
 

Related Threads on Am I the only one that finds this funny?

  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
8K
Replies
95
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
7K
Top