Empty Set and Vector Space

  • #1
HungryChemist
143
0
While reading text, I had a question which I can not resolve by myself. Please Help me!

it reads, The empty set( a vector space with no elements) is denoted as & (This symbol doesn't matter for the sake of argument, I don't know how to write the Zero with a line in the middle). I can understand what they mean by empty set. It must be somewhat like this; Set V = { }. But can such set with no elements has all the quality of being a vector space? If so, how can one show it does indeed meets all the ten axioms of vector space?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
601
15
It seems to me that a vector space ought to contain vectors, so the empty set probably doesn't qualify.
 
  • #3
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,426
4
The thing with maths is that the empty set can be a FOO since there are no elements of the empty set for whcih the definitions of FOO are false. BUt, that said, I don't think this case is one of them, there is for instance no additive identity. Which text is this?
 
  • #4
symplectic_manifold
60
0
Hm
Since the empty set is a subset of every set, I think one can still say it's a vector space.
The statement [tex]x\in\emptyset[/tex] is always wrong, so you can derive any statement you wish, in this case the axioms for vector spaces, which will apply to the empty vector space. (In fact, everything can follow from a wrong statement)
 
  • #5
Galileo
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,994
6
Vector spaces need a zero vector (an additive identity) just like groups need an identity element. So empty sets cannot be vector spaces.
 
  • #6
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,426
4
Of course, almost every time I define these things for students I declare the underlying set to be not empty and that removes any doubt.
 
  • #7
symplectic_manifold
60
0
OK, I looked it up.
The definition presupposes that a subspace of a vector space be non-empty. But does a vector space deserve to be called a set then?
 
  • #8
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,426
4
of course it does.
 
  • #9
HungryChemist
143
0
matt grime said:
The thing with maths is that the empty set can be a FOO since there are no elements of the empty set for whcih the definitions of FOO are false. BUt, that said, I don't think this case is one of them, there is for instance no additive identity. Which text is this?


This is yet published text which my professor uses for my classes. This class is Mathematical Methods/Numerical Analysis.
 
  • #10
HungryChemist
143
0
symplectic_manifold said:
Hm
Since the empty set is a subset of every set, I think one can still say it's a vector space.

Empty set is a subset of every set can't be true. If a set S is a subset of a set V then there should be at least one element of set S that also belongs to a set V but there are no such element if the set S is empty. No?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,426
4
I'm afraid the empty set is a subset of any set, at least in any (model of a) set theory worth its salt.
 
  • #12
symplectic_manifold
60
0
HungryChemist said:
Empty set is a subset of every set can't be true. If a set S is a subset of a set V then there should be at least one element of set S that also belongs to a set S but there are no such element if the set S is empty. No?

Well, this is it.
The empty set is a subset of every set exactly because of the fact, that one doesn't need to verify, that every element of the empty set also belongs to a non-empty set.
If we have a property which no elements of a non-empty set have, we obtain the empty subset of this non-empty set:
[itex]\emptyset=\{x\in{M}|x\neq{x}\}[/itex]

...but as I eventually made clear for myself, it has nothing to do with a vector space...nothing can be defined on an empty set...from nothing comes nothing! o:)
 
  • #13
HungryChemist
143
0
symplectic_manifold said:
Well, this is it.
The empty set is a subset of every set exactly because of the fact, that one doesn't need to verify, that every element of the empty set also belongs to a non-empty set.
If we have a property which no elements of a non-empty set have, we obtain the empty subset of this non-empty set:
[itex]\emptyset=\{x\in{M}|x\neq{x}\}[/itex]

...but as I eventually made clear for myself, it has nothing to do with a vector space...nothing can be defined on an empty set...from nothing comes nothing! o:)

shoudn't it be [itex]\emptyset=\{x\in{M}|x\neq{y}\}[/itex]?

x not equal x sounds very wrong...
 
  • #14
Galileo
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,994
6
No, it's correct. [itex]x \not= x[/itex] is always false: there is no x which satisfies that nonequality, therefore the given set is empty. You didn't even specify what y is, so your expression has no meaning.

To relieve any doubt, use the following definition of subset:

If A and B are sets, then A is called a subset of B if:
[tex]x \in A \Rightarrow x \in B[/tex]

the notation is [itex]A \subset B[/itex].

Do you see now why the empty set is a subset of every set.
 
  • #15
hypermorphism
506
1
Also note that this property conveniently gives us the property that the intersection of two sets which have no elements in common is still a set, the empty set (since it is a subset of both sets).
 
  • #16
HungryChemist
143
0
Galileo said:
No, it's correct. [itex]x \not= x[/itex] is always false: there is no x which satisfies that nonequality, therefore the given set is empty. You didn't even specify what y is, so your expression has no meaning.

To relieve any doubt, use the following definition of subset:

If A and B are sets, then A is called a subset of B if:
[tex]x \in A \Rightarrow x \in B[/tex]

the notation is [itex]A \subset B[/itex].

Do you see now why the empty set is a subset of every set.


Yes! Thank you very much. I am always amazed!
 
  • #17
PBRMEASAP
191
2
HungryChemist said:
While reading text, I had a question which I can not resolve by myself. Please Help me!

it reads, The empty set( a vector space with no elements) is denoted as & (This symbol doesn't matter for the sake of argument, I don't know how to write the Zero with a line in the middle). I can understand what they mean by empty set. It must be somewhat like this; Set V = { }. But can such set with no elements has all the quality of being a vector space? If so, how can one show it does indeed meets all the ten axioms of vector space?

Yeah, as others pointed out, the empty set can't be a vector space because it has no zero vector. However, the empty set does span the vector space consisting of the zero vector, according to the definition of span: The span of a set of vectors is the smallest subspace containing those vectors.
 
  • #18
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
PBRMEASAP said:
Yeah, as others pointed out, the empty set can't be a vector space because it has no zero vector. However, the empty set does span the vector space consisting of the zero vector, according to the definition of span: The span of a set of vectors is the smallest subspace containing those vectors.

In what sense does the span of the empty set equal the set containing the 0 vector?
 
  • #19
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
"The span of a set of vectors is the smallest subspace containing those vectors."

:tongue2:

Also, the zero vector is the linear combination of no vectors. (i.e. the "empty sum")
 
  • #20
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,391
1,628
the summation symbol is a function from indexed sets of vectors to the vector space, which is additive on disjoint decompositions of the index set. hence it must send the empty index set (which is an indexed set, since the empty set is a set) to zero.

hence the empty linear combination must equal zero. Many many proofs in linear algebra are lacunary without this remark. I just taught it last semester and found out how hard it is to ignore this case without making mistakes, (which however no one noticed except me). Indeed even the book I used made this mistake - although the authors tried hard to give correct statements without pointing out this subtle fact, they did not quite succeed. :rofl:
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Lux Perpetua.
1
0
symplectic_manifold said:
Hm
Since the empty set is a subset of every set, I think one can still say it's a vector space.
The statement [tex]x\in\emptyset[/tex] is always wrong, so you can derive any statement you wish, in this case the axioms for vector spaces, which will apply to the empty vector space. (In fact, everything can follow from a wrong statement)

Hello all. Ermh, here comes my first post!:

Of course, you can state true sentences about an empty space just beginning your sentence with sorts of "for all elements of...", "for every v in...", etc. Thus, all you axioms for vector spaces which state a general property for all elements, will hold true by an argument of vacuous truth: "for all v, w in V, v+w belongs to V", "for all u, v, w in V, (u+v)+w = u+(v+w)", etc. All of them hold true since there's not any element in {} to contradict these affirmations!

But some axioms involve explicit existence of special elements, and thus they cannot hold validity anymore in the frame of an empty set: "there exists v in V such as, for all w in V, v+w=v", and "there exists u in V such as, for all w in V, w+u=v, in which v is the additive identity element". None of them can exist because your set is empty.

So you cannot have additive identity nor inverse additive in empty set, so it is not a vector space :).
 
  • #22
Roti Boy
2
0
HungryChemist said:
While reading text, I had a question which I can not resolve by myself. Please Help me!

it reads, The empty set( a vector space with no elements) is denoted as & (This symbol doesn't matter for the sake of argument, I don't know how to write the Zero with a line in the middle). I can understand what they mean by empty set. It must be somewhat like this; Set V = { }. But can such set with no elements has all the quality of being a vector space? If so, how can one show it does indeed meets all the ten axioms of vector space?

i hope you have some knowledge in "logic". because the answer need it.

Let A and B be two statements.
The statement "if A then B" always TRUE when "A" is FALSE.
so all the axioms for vector space are always TRUE. for example:

(consider V={}, then empty set)
V1. "if x, y in V then x+y in V",
since V={}, "x, y in V" is FALSE and so statement V1 is TRUE.
 
  • #23
philosophking
175
0
Why does the empty set satisfy the additive identity? The additive identity states that for all x in X (the vectorspace), x+e=x. Obviously this is satisfied for the empty set.
 
  • #24
phoenixthoth
1,605
2
As stated a few times, "there exists" statements are not true while "for all" statements are always true. This was cited as a reason why Ø is a vector space. However, the statement for all v in Ø, ___, (insert the negation of an axiom) is also true vacuously.

But yeah, there is no zero vector so it's not a v.space.

As also noted earlier, Ø is the basis for {0}. And it is very unlikely that a basis is a v.space as well. At least for finite dimensional spaces over infinite fields.

{0} is the smallest space period and Ø is a subset of {0}, so Ø is the basis for {0}.
 
  • #25
fourier jr
757
13
isn't everything "vacuously true" about the empty set? i always thought the empty set was the most trivial (& therefore least interesting) example of a ring, group, vector space, module, etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuously
 
  • #26
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
isn't everything "vacuously true" about the empty set?

No: universally quantified statements (a.k.a. "for all x in {}"-type) are vacuously true. Existential (a.k.a. "there exists x in {}"-type) are automatically false.

The empty set is not a model of a ring, group, vector space, or module, because each of those has an existential axiom. Actually, all of them have the group axioms inside them someplace, so all I really need to mention is that the axioms of a group include the existence of an identity element.
 
  • #27
Adriadne
23
0
HungryChemist said:
it reads, The empty set( a vector space with no elements) is denoted as & (This symbol doesn't matter for the sake of argument, I don't know how to write the Zero with a line in the middle).
My first post too! But, let's see.

Consider an n-dimensional vector space [tex]V[/tex] spanned by basis vectors [tex]\{v^i\}~i=1,...n[/tex]. Now let's have two subspaces [tex]U, W[/tex], spanned by [tex]\{u^j\},\{w^k\} [/tex] respectively, [tex]j,k = 1,...m, \text{with}~m < n. [/tex]These subspaces are also spanned by [tex]\{v^i\}[/tex] clearly.

Now say [tex]U\cap W=\emptyset[/tex].

Now if [tex]V[/tex] is a set, it has as it's trivial subsets [tex]V~\text{and}~\emptyset[/tex]

Then is there a sense in which the the empty set is a subspace of [tex]V[/tex]? I can't really see why not, but I am happy to be corrected.
 
  • #28
phoenixthoth
1,605
2
Adriadne said:
My first post too! But, let's see.

Consider an n-dimensional vector space [tex]V[/tex] spanned by basis vectors [tex]\{v^i\}~i=1,...n[/tex]. Now let's have two subspaces [tex]U, W[/tex], spanned by [tex]\{u^j\},\{w^k\} [/tex] respectively, [tex]j,k = 1,...m, \text{with}~m < n. [/tex]These subspaces are also spanned by [tex]\{v^i\}[/tex] clearly.

Now say [tex]U\cap W=\emptyset[/tex].

Now if [tex]V[/tex] is a set, it has as it's trivial subsets [tex]V~\text{and}~\emptyset[/tex]

Then is there a sense in which the the empty set is a subspace of [tex]V[/tex]? I can't really see why not, but I am happy to be corrected.


The intersection can't be empty for the zero vector is in both.
 
  • #29
Adriadne
23
0
phoenixthoth said:
The intersection can't be empty for the zero vector is in both.
Oh dear, I hope as a neophyte, I'm not making a fool of myself.
OK look. Grant me that, if the empty set is a trivial subset of V, then it must, by the definition, contain the identity. So, is there no sense, in the case that the set V is a vector space, that the zero vector can be identified with the identity?
 
  • #30
phoenixthoth
1,605
2
Adriadne said:
Oh dear, I hope as a neophyte, I'm not making a fool of myself.
OK look. Grant me that, if the empty set is a trivial subset of V, then it must, by the definition, contain the identity. So, is there no sense, in the case that the set V is a vector space, that the zero vector can be identified with the identity?

It is a trivial subset of V.

It is not a trivial subspace of V. {0} is a subspace of V.

If there is a zero vector or identity in Ø, then Ø is not empty.
 
  • #31
Adriadne
23
0
Thanks for that, I was quite incorrectly equating {0} with { }.
 
  • #32
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
Adriadne said:
Oh dear, I hope as a neophyte, I'm not making a fool of myself.
OK look. Grant me that, if the empty set is a trivial subset of V, then it must, by the definition, contain the identity. So, is there no sense, in the case that the set V is a vector space, that the zero vector can be identified with the identity?

No, I won't grant you that! Saying the empty set is a subset is not the same as saying it is a subspace!
 
  • #33
phoenixthoth
1,605
2
Adriadne said:
Thanks for that, I was quite incorrectly equating {0} with { }.
You're welcome.

Have fun here at PF!
 
  • #34
Adriadne
23
0
phoenixthoth said:
Have fun here at PF!
Ha! Be careful what you say, I have a zillion half-assed questions up my sleeve!
 

Suggested for: Empty Set and Vector Space

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
828
Replies
2
Views
833
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
779
Replies
7
Views
519
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
961
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
731
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
162
Replies
4
Views
548
Top