Am I the only one that finds this funny?

  • Thread starter 1MileCrash
  • Start date
  • #1
1MileCrash
1,339
41
Is this really worthy of being pointed out as a corollary??
 

Attachments

  • corollary.png
    corollary.png
    117.5 KB · Views: 508

Answers and Replies

  • #2
phosgene
146
1
Oops. It's just the contrapositive. Then no, it's not worthy of being a corollary.
 
  • #3
fluidistic
Gold Member
3,875
210
If it follows from the theorem 1.6 then why not? :) Not really funny to me.
 
  • #4
1MileCrash
1,339
41
Yes. Not all theorems work both ways like that.

Are you sure? :wink:
 
  • #5
phosgene
146
1
Are you sure? :wink:

I misread it, thought that the corollary was about dependance too. :redface:
 
  • #6
1MileCrash
1,339
41
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
2021 Award
5,220
1,175
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
1MileCrash
1,339
41
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
7,025
297
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
427
8
Is this really worthy of being pointed out as a corollary??

Wait. Why? Because there's two extra commas in there?
 

Suggested for: Am I the only one that finds this funny?

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
213
Replies
34
Views
1K
Replies
64
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
192
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
304
Replies
1
Views
225
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
399
Replies
20
Views
724
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
389
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
708
Top