Help me understand this proof of R^infinity's infinite-dimensionality

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesGold
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the infinite-dimensionality of ℝ^∞, which begins by assuming a finite set of basis vectors |s| < ∞. The contradiction arises when introducing a vector u = en+1 + en+2 + ... + em, which cannot be expressed as a linear combination of the finite basis {e1, e2, ..., en}. This leads to the conclusion that ℝ^∞ cannot have a finite basis, thereby establishing its infinite-dimensionality. The proof highlights the necessity of recognizing that not all vectors can be represented by a finite set of basis vectors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector spaces and linear combinations
  • Familiarity with the concept of basis in linear algebra
  • Knowledge of infinite-dimensional spaces
  • Basic proof techniques in mathematics, particularly proof by contradiction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of infinite-dimensional vector spaces
  • Learn about the concept of bases in functional analysis
  • Explore proof techniques, specifically proof by contradiction in mathematical logic
  • Investigate the implications of dimensionality in various mathematical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of linear algebra, and anyone interested in advanced mathematical proofs related to vector spaces and dimensionality concepts.

JamesGold
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
The proof goes as follows:

For contradiction, assume there exists |s|< ∞ such that s = {e1, e2, ... , en} and span(s} = ℝ^∞.

The above makes at least some sense to me. The proof goes on...

Let m > n and u = en+1 + en+2 + ... + em

u \notin span(s), u \in s

Because {e1, e2, ... , en} \notin s, this implies a contradiction. Therefore ℝ^∞ is infinite-dimensional.

I don't see what we just did, and I don't see how what we just did proves that R^infinity is infinite-dimensional. Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In words:
Assume that there is a finite base with a finite number of base vectors e1 to en*.
Consider en+1 (+maybe more vectors) - where it is unclear in which basis that is supposed to be*. This vector cannot be represented by a sum of e1 to en, therefore the initial assumption is wrong and a finite base cannot exist.

* I think the combination of those are a serious problem. While is possible to name (arbitrary) base vectors with ei, this cannot be extended to other vectors. If ei refer to the standard base, you cannot simply assume that a finite base uses those vectors.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K