Another infinite-dimensional basis question using transfinite induction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of transfinite induction in linear algebra to prove the existence of a basis for an infinite-dimensional vector space V, given a linearly independent set I and a spanning set G. Participants explore the definitions and properties necessary for applying transfinite induction, as well as alternative approaches to the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes using transfinite induction to show that if I is a linearly independent set and G is a spanning set of V, then there exists a basis B such that I is contained in B and B is contained in G.
  • Another participant questions the definition of the set A and its properties, specifically why A should be in the span of a linearly independent set K.
  • A different participant suggests that the approach of transfinite induction may not be fruitful and proposes collapsing G towards I instead, arguing that if G is not independent, vectors can be discarded.
  • One participant considers redefining A as a subset of G-I to ensure it is non-empty and believes this could lead to a successful proof.
  • Another participant describes a modified approach where A is defined as a set of vectors in G-I, asserting that this leads to A being an inductive subset of G-I.
  • One participant notes that the "collapsing" approach mirrors their original "lifting" method, indicating no clear advantage to either method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the effectiveness of transfinite induction versus alternative methods, such as collapsing G towards I. There is no consensus on the best approach, and several participants challenge the definitions and properties involved in the proposed methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the definitions of sets and properties used in the proofs, particularly regarding the non-emptiness of A and its relationship to spans of linearly independent sets. The discussion reflects ongoing refinement of ideas without resolving these issues.

andytoh
Messages
357
Reaction score
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
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)?
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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:
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:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K