Definition of a Cone: Does it Include Zero Vector?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cone Definition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of a cone in linear algebra, specifically whether it includes the zero vector and the implications of defining cones in real versus complex vector spaces. Participants explore various definitions and contexts in which cones are considered, including their relation to ordered vector spaces and positive semidefinite matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Wikipedia definition of a cone includes the condition that for any vector in the cone, scaling by a positive scalar results in another vector in the cone, but there is ambiguity regarding the inclusion of the zero vector.
  • One participant mentions that some definitions explicitly state that the cone must contain the zero vector, while others do not, leading to confusion.
  • There is a question about the necessity of defining the vector space as real, with some participants suggesting that the definition can extend to complex vector spaces like ##\mathbb{C}^n## or ##M_n(\mathbb{C})##.
  • Another participant explains that cones are closely related to ordered vector spaces, which are typically defined over the reals, and notes that complex numbers do not form an ordered field, which may limit the study of cones in complex spaces.
  • There is a mention of the set of positive semidefinite matrices in ##M_n(\mathbb{C}## as a convex cone, with uncertainty expressed about how well-studied this area is.
  • One participant suggests considering ##M_n(\mathbb{C}## as a vector space over ##\mathbb{R}## to explore its properties further.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether cones must include the zero vector, and there is no consensus on the implications of defining cones in complex vector spaces. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent of study on positive semidefinite matrices in complex spaces.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ambiguity in definitions of cones, particularly concerning the inclusion of the zero vector and the implications of working within real versus complex vector spaces. There are also references to the limitations of ordered fields in the context of complex numbers.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
On this wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_(linear_algebra) , "a subset ##C## of a real vector space ##V## is a cone if and only if ##\lambda x## belongs to ##C## for any ##x## in ##C## and any positive scalar ##\lambda## of ##V##."

The book in this link https://books.google.com/books?id=P...does the cone contain the zero vector&f=false defines the cone as always containing the zero vector.

I am slightly perplexed, especially since a few other sources I have come across define it as having zero, or simply define ##\lambda \ge 0##, which implies that it contains the zero vector. So, my first question is, does the cone contain the zero vector? How is it typically defined?

My next question is, why does ##V## have to be a real vector space? Can't we have cones in ##\mathbb{C}^n## or ##M_n(\mathbb{C})##? In the wiki article, I see that they say the concept of a cone can be extended to those vector spaces whose scalar fields is a superset of the ones they mention. So, because "##\mathbb{R} \subseteq \mathbb{C}##," the very same definition of a cone can be extended to ##\mathbb{C}^n##, without any modification?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bashyboy said:
So, my first question is, does the cone contain the zero vector? How is it typically defined?
It is typically defined as in the Wikipedia entry. Sometimes ##\mathbf{0}## is left out, but this should be explicitly stipulated.
Bashyboy said:
My next question is, why does ##V## have to be a real vector space? Can't we have cones in ##\mathbb{C}^n## or ##M_n(\mathbb{C})##? In the wiki article, I see that they say the concept of a cone can be extended to those vector spaces whose scalar fields is a superset of the ones they mention. So, because "##\mathbb{R} \subseteq \mathbb{C}##," the very same definition of a cone can be extended to ##\mathbb{C}^n##, without any modification?
Cones are related intimately to the theory of ordered vector spaces. In this Wikipedia article, these spaces are always taken over ##\mathbb{R}## but you can in fact replace ##\mathbb{R}## by any ordered field. That explains why you will not (or: not often) encounter complex ordered vector spaces, because ##\mathbb{C}## is not an ordered field.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I see. So, the set of all positive semidefinite matrices in ##M_n(\mathbb{C})## as a convex cone hasn't been studied much?
 
Bashyboy said:
Okay, I see. So, the set of all positive semidefinite matrices in ##M_n(\mathbb{C})## as a convex cone hasn't been studied much?
Probably not, would be my first guess.

You could try to see where you get when you regard ##M_n(\mathbb{C})## as a vector space over ##\mathbb{R}## instead of ##\mathbb{C}##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K