Finite Dimensional Vector Space & Span Proof

XDJuicebox
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



So basically, I'm studying the proof for this:

"In a finite dimensional vector space, the length of every linearly independent list of vectors is less than or equal to the length of every spanning list of vectors."

What the book (Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right 2e) does to prove it is that:

Suppose the list (u1, ..., um) is linaerly independent in V and (w1, ..., wn) spans V. We need to prove that m ≤ n.

So what they do is they state that the list (w1, ..., wn) spans V, and so adding any vector to it makes it linearly dependent, and when they add one, they remove one of the w's (because in a lemma they proved that you can express any of the w's in terms of the previous vectors in the list).

My question is, why do they do that to prove this? What is it about having more u's that creates a contradiction?

I have a two hunches:

1. If there are more u's than w's, then once you add all the u's (and remove the w's), you'll have no more w's, and so the list will no longer necessarily span V?
2. If there are more u's than w's, you added a dimension, which doesn't make sense?

Thank you so much ^_^
 
Physics news on Phys.org
XDJuicebox said:

Homework Statement



So basically, I'm studying the proof for this:

"In a finite dimensional vector space, the length of every linearly independent list of vectors is less than or equal to the length of every spanning list of vectors."

What the book (Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right 2e) does to prove it is that:

Suppose the list (u1, ..., um) is linaerly independent in V and (w1, ..., wn) spans V. We need to prove that m ≤ n.

So what they do is they state that the list (w1, ..., wn) spans V, and so adding any vector to it makes it linearly dependent, and when they add one, they remove one of the w's (because in a lemma they proved that you can express any of the w's in terms of the previous vectors in the list).

My question is, why do they do that to prove this? What is it about having more u's that creates a contradiction?

I have a two hunches:

1. If there are more u's than w's, then once you add all the u's (and remove the w's), you'll have no more w's, and so the list will no longer necessarily span V?
2. If there are more u's than w's, you added a dimension, which doesn't make sense?

Thank you so much ^_^

Once you have that (u1, ...,un) spans V, then if there is a un+1 then it must be a linear combination of (u1, ...,un). But the u's were supposed to be linearly independent. You've created a contradiction, not "added a dimension".
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top