MHB Finite Dimensional Division Algebras - Bresar Lemma 1.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Division Finite
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the proof of Lemma 1.1 from Matej Bresar's "Introduction to Noncommutative Algebra," specifically regarding the linear dependence of the set {1, x, ..., x^n} in a finite-dimensional division algebra. It is established that since the dimension of D is n, having n+1 elements in the set implies linear dependence. This leads to the existence of a non-zero polynomial f(ω) with coefficients that are not all zero, satisfying f(x) = 0. The polynomial is constructed from the linear combination of the elements in the set, confirming the lemma's assertion. The explanation clarifies how linear dependence directly results in the existence of such a polynomial.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Matej Bresar's book, "Introduction to Noncommutative Algebra" and am currently focussed on Chapter 1: Finite Dimensional Division Algebras ... ...

I need help with the an aspect of the proof of Lemma 1.1 ... ...

Lemma 1.1 reads as follows:
View attachment 6192

In the above text, at the start of the proof of Lemma 1.1, Bresar writes the following:" ... ... Since the dimension of $$D$$ is $$n$$, the elements $$1, x, \ ... \ ... \ , x^n$$ are linearly dependent. This means that there exists a non-zero polynomial $$f( \omega ) \in \mathbb{R} [ \omega ]$$ of degree at most $$n$$ such that $$f(x) = 0$$ ... ... "My question is as follows:

How exactly (rigorously and formally) does the elements $$1, x, \ ... \ ... \ , x^n$$ being linearly dependent allow us to conclude that there exists a non-zero polynomial $$f( \omega ) \in \mathbb{R} [ \omega ] $$ of degree at most $$n$$ such that $$f(x) = 0$$ ... ?Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter

=====================================================

In order for readers of the above post to appreciate the context of the post I am providing pages 1-2 of Bresar ... as follows ...https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6193
View attachment 6194
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
My question is as follows:

How exactly (rigorously and formally) does the elements $$1, x, \ ... \ ... \ , x^n$$ being linearly dependent allow us to conclude that there exists a non-zero polynomial $$f( \omega ) \in \mathbb{R} [ \omega ] $$ of degree at most $$n$$ such that $$f(x) = 0$$ ... ?
The definition of dimension tells you that the maximum number of elements in a linearly independent set is $n$. The set $\{1,x,\ldots,x^n\}$ contains $n+1$ elements and must therefore be linearly dependent.

Now go back to the definition of linear dependence for the set $\{1,x,\ldots,x^n\}$. This says that there exist real numbers $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$, not all zero, such that $\alpha_01 + \alpha_1x + \alpha_2x^2 + \ldots + \alpha_nx^n = 0.$

Define the polynomial $f(\omega)$ by $f(\omega) = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1\omega + \alpha_2\omega^2 + \ldots + \alpha_n\omega^n.$ This polynomial is nonzero (because not all its coefficients are zero), and clearly $f(x) = 0.$
 
Opalg said:
The definition of dimension tells you that the maximum number of elements in a linearly independent set is $n$. The set $\{1,x,\ldots,x^n\}$ contains $n+1$ elements and must therefore be linearly dependent.

Now go back to the definition of linear dependence for the set $\{1,x,\ldots,x^n\}$. This says that there exist real numbers $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$, not all zero, such that $\alpha_01 + \alpha_1x + \alpha_2x^2 + \ldots + \alpha_nx^n = 0.$

Define the polynomial $f(\omega)$ by $f(\omega) = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1\omega + \alpha_2\omega^2 + \ldots + \alpha_n\omega^n.$ This polynomial is nonzero (because not all its coefficients are zero), and clearly $f(x) = 0.$
Thanks Opalg ... very clear and very helpful ...

Appreciate your help ...

Peter
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K