Finite Dimensional Vector Space & Span Proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof from Axler's "Linear Algebra Done Right 2e" regarding the relationship between linearly independent vectors and spanning sets in finite dimensional vector spaces. The proof establishes that if a list of vectors (u1, ..., um) is linearly independent in a vector space V, then its length m must be less than or equal to the length n of any spanning list (w1, ..., wn) of V, thus m ≤ n. The participants clarify that adding more vectors than the spanning set leads to a contradiction, as it would imply that the additional vectors can be expressed as linear combinations of the existing ones, violating their independence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of finite dimensional vector spaces
  • Familiarity with concepts of linear independence and spanning sets
  • Knowledge of linear combinations and vector representation
  • Basic proficiency in linear algebra, particularly from Axler's "Linear Algebra Done Right 2e"
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of linear independence in depth, focusing on examples and counterexamples
  • Explore the implications of the dimension theorem in linear algebra
  • Learn about the process of constructing bases for vector spaces
  • Investigate the relationship between linear transformations and vector space dimensions
USEFUL FOR

Students of linear algebra, educators teaching vector space theory, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of linear independence and spanning sets in finite dimensional vector spaces.

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".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K