Undergrad How Can a Set Fail the Scalar Identity Axiom in Vector Spaces?

Click For Summary
A set can fail the Scalar Identity axiom in vector spaces if the scalar multiplication is defined in a non-standard way. For example, if scalar multiplication is defined as k · <x, y> = <kx, 0>, then there is no scalar k that satisfies k · <x, y> = <x, y>. This means that the identity condition 1V = V does not hold. The discussion emphasizes that the nature of scalar multiplication is crucial in determining whether the Scalar Identity axiom is satisfied. Understanding these definitions is key to grasping the structure of vector spaces.
elements
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
So I understand how to prove most of the axioms of a vector space except for axiom 10, I just do not understand how any set could fail the Scalar Identity axiom; Could anybody clarify how exactly a set could fail this as from what I know that anything times one results in itself

1u = u
1(x,y,z)=(x,y,z)
1(1,2,3) = (1,2,3)
1 (1,0,...,1) = (1,0,...,1)

I don't see how you could ever end up in a situation where you could end up with

1VV
 
Physics news on Phys.org
elements said:
So I understand how to prove most of the axioms of a vector space except for axiom 10, I just do not understand how any set could fail the Scalar Identity axiom; Could anybody clarify how exactly a set could fail this as from what I know that anything times one results in itself

1u = u
1(x,y,z)=(x,y,z)
1(1,2,3) = (1,2,3)
1 (1,0,...,1) = (1,0,...,1)

I don't see how you could ever end up in a situation where you could end up with

1VV
It can happen if you have a vector space with an unusual kind of scalar multiplication. Keep in mind that a vector space consists of a set of vectors over some field (often, the field of real numbers ##\mathbb{R}## or the field of complex numbers ##\mathbb{C}##), together with operations for vector addition and for multiplication by a scalar.

If scalar multiplication is defined like this
##k \cdot <x, y> = <kx, 0>##
then there is no scalar k for which ##k \cdot <x, y> = <x, y>##.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K