Intersection of all subspace of V is the empty set

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the intersection of all subspaces of a vector space \( V \) of dimension \( n \) that have dimension \( n-1 \). Participants explore the implications of this intersection, particularly whether it is the empty set or the set containing only the zero vector, and how to demonstrate this using properties of bases and linear independence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using a contradiction approach to argue that if a non-zero vector exists in all \( n-1 \)-dimensional subspaces, it leads to a contradiction.
  • Another participant explains that if a vector \( \overline{v} \) can be exchanged with a basis element to form a new basis, it implies that \( \overline{v} \) cannot belong to any \( n-1 \)-dimensional subspace.
  • There is a discussion about the specific conditions under which a vector can replace an element of the basis, emphasizing the need for linear independence.
  • One participant provides an example using \( \mathbb{R}^3 \) and discusses the intersection of all 2-dimensional subspaces, concluding that it contains only the zero vector.
  • Another participant asserts that the intersection of all \( n-1 \)-dimensional subspaces in a finite-dimensional vector space is the span of the zero vector.
  • There is a clarification regarding the terminology used in the thread title, with participants discussing the distinction between the empty set and the set containing only the zero vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the intersection is the empty set or the set containing only the zero vector. While some argue for the latter, others emphasize the need for clarity in terminology and definitions.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved nuances regarding the definitions of empty sets and the zero vector set, as well as the implications of linear independence in the context of replacing basis elements.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $V$ be a $\mathbb{R}$-subspace with basis $B=\{v_1 ,v_2, \ldots , v_n\}$ and $\overline{v}\in V$, $\overline{v}\neq 0$.

I have shown that if we exchange $\overline{v}$ with an element $v_i\in B$ we get again a basis.

How can we show, using this fact, that the intersection of all subspace of $V$ of dimension $n-1$ is $\{0\}$ ?

Could you give me a hint? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi mathmari,

Trying to argue by contradiction can be useful here. Suppose there is a non-zero vector, say $u$, common to all $n-1$-dimensional subspaces. Can you construct an $n-1$-dimensional subspace to which $u$ cannot belong?
 
We have that $B=\{v_1, \ldots , v_{j-1}, v_j,v_{j+1},\ldots ,v_n\}$ is a basis of $V$.

We can exchange $\overline{v}$ with an element $v_j \in B$ and we get again a basis. So, we have that $B'=\{\bar{v},v_1,\dots,v_{j-1},v_{j+1},v_n\}$ is also a basis of $V$.

We have that $\bar{v}$ doesn't belong to the span of $\{v_1,\dots,v_{j-1},v_{j+1},v_n\}$ that has dimension $n-1$, otherwise the vectors $\bar{v}, v_1,\dots,v_{j-1},v_{j+1},v_n$ would be linear dependent, a contradiction to the fact that $B'=\{\bar{v},v_1,\dots,v_{j-1},v_{j+1},v_n\}$ is a basis.

So, we have that $\bar{v}$ doesn't belong to a $(n-1)$-dimensional subspace, and so it cannot belong to the intersection of all subspaces of $V$ of dimension $n-1$.

It follows that the intersection of all subspaces of $V$ of dimension $n-1$ is the empty set, $\{0\}$. Is everything correct? (Wondering)
Can we make it specific when we have a specific vector space? If we take for example $V=\mathbb{R}^3$, we have the basis $B=\{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\}$. We want the intersection of alle subspaces of dimension 2. Can we find them? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
We have that $B=\{v_1, \ldots , v_{j-1}, v_j,v_{j+1},\ldots ,v_n\}$ is a basis of $V$.

We can exchange $\overline{v}$ with an element $v_j \in B$ and we get again a basis. So, we have that $B'=\{\bar{v},v_1,\dots,v_{j-1},v_{j+1},v_n\}$ is also a basis of $V$.

We have that $\bar{v}$ doesn't belong to the span of $\{v_1,\dots,v_{j-1},v_{j+1},v_n\}$ that has dimension $n-1$, otherwise the vectors $\bar{v}, v_1,\dots,v_{j-1},v_{j+1},v_n$ would be linear dependent, a contradiction to the fact that $B'=\{\bar{v},v_1,\dots,v_{j-1},v_{j+1},v_n\}$ is a basis.

So, we have that $\bar{v}$ doesn't belong to a $(n-1)$-dimensional subspace, and so it cannot belong to the intersection of all subspaces of $V$ of dimension $n-1$.

It follows that the intersection of all subspaces of $V$ of dimension $n-1$ is the empty set, $\{0\}$. Is everything correct? (Wondering)

Argument looks good. I would add one small comment: you cannot exchange an arbitrary element of your basis with $\bar{v}$ to obtain a new basis; i.e., there is a specific $v_{j}$ which can be replaced by $\bar{v}$. For example, if $\bar{v}=[2, 0, 0]^{T}$, you cannot replace $[0, 1, 0]^{T}$ or $[0, 0, 1]^{T}$ by $\bar{v}$ and obtain a new basis for $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Only by replacing $[1, 0 , 0]^{T}$ with $\bar{v}$ do we obtain a "new" basis for $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Not saying you weren't aware of this, just wanted to make sure it was said explicitly just in case :)

mathmari said:
Can we make it specific when we have a specific vector space? If we take for example $V=\mathbb{R}^3$, we have the basis $B=\{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\}$. We want the intersection of all subspaces of dimension 2. Can we find them? (Wondering)

As we now know, the intersection of all 2-dimensional subspaces in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ will be $0=[0,0,0]^{T}.$ There are infinitely many subspaces of dimension 2 in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ since there are infinitely many planes passing through the origin. Nevertheless, we can examine a particular subcollection of these to the same end.

Consider the set of planes/2-dimensional subspaces obtained by rotating the $xz$-plane in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ around the $z$-axis by $\theta$, where $0\leq \theta <\pi$. For fixed $\theta$, $\left\{[\cos\theta, \sin\theta, 0]^{T}, [0, 0, 1]^{T} \right\}$ is a basis for the 2-dimensional subspace, say $V_{\theta}$, obtained by rotating the $xz$-plane by $\theta.$ We then have $\cap_{0\leq \theta<\pi}V_{\theta}=0$. Since $V_{\theta}$ is just a particular subcollection of all the 2-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ (and since $0=[0,0,0]^{T}$ must be in all subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, regardless of dimension), the intersection of all 2-dimensional subspaces must be $0$.

Try forming the analogous argument (with pictures!) in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ using lines passing through the origin for another example. Hope this helps.
 
GJA said:
Argument looks good. I would add one small comment: you cannot exchange an arbitrary element of your basis with $\bar{v}$ to obtain a new basis; i.e., there is a specific $v_{j}$ which can be replaced by $\bar{v}$. For example, if $\bar{v}=[2, 0, 0]^{T}$, you cannot replace $[0, 1, 0]^{T}$ or $[0, 0, 1]^{T}$ by $\bar{v}$ and obtain a new basis for $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Only by replacing $[1, 0 , 0]^{T}$ with $\bar{v}$ do we obtain a "new" basis for $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Not saying you weren't aware of this, just wanted to make sure it was said explicitly just in case :)

It is because the new vectors must again be linearly independet, right? (Wondering)
GJA said:
As we now know, the intersection of all 2-dimensional subspaces in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ will be $0=[0,0,0]^{T}.$ There are infinitely many subspaces of dimension 2 in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ since there are infinitely many planes passing through the origin. Nevertheless, we can examine a particular subcollection of these to the same end.

Consider the set of planes/2-dimensional subspaces obtained by rotating the $xz$-plane in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ around the $z$-axis by $\theta$, where $0\leq \theta <\pi$. For fixed $\theta$, $\left\{[\cos\theta, \sin\theta, 0]^{T}, [0, 0, 1]^{T} \right\}$ is a basis for the 2-dimensional subspace, say $V_{\theta}$, obtained by rotating the $xz$-plane by $\theta.$ We then have $\cap_{0\leq \theta<\pi}V_{\theta}=0$. Since $V_{\theta}$ is just a particular subcollection of all the 2-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ (and since $0=[0,0,0]^{T}$ must be in all subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, regardless of dimension), the intersection of all 2-dimensional subspaces must be $0$.

Try forming the analogous argument (with pictures!) in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ using lines passing through the origin for another example. Hope this helps.

Ah ok! (Thinking)
 
I think you are working too hard.

Let $V$ be a vector space of finite dimension $n$ over a field $K$. The intersection of all subspaces of $V$ of dimension $n-1$ is $<0>$.

Let $v\neq 0\in V$. Then there exists a basis $B$ of $V$ with $v\in B$ (for any set $S$ of independent vectors of $V$, there is a basis $B$ of $V$ with $S\subseteq B$). Clearly the span $W$ of $B\setminus \{v\}$ is a subspace of dimension $n-1$ with $v\notin W$. QED.
 
By the way, the title to this thread said "empty set". Obviously, {0} is not the "empty set".
 
Use \{\varnothing\} for $\{\varnothing\}$.
 
greg1313 said:
Use \{\varnothing\} for $\{\varnothing\}$.
But that isn't what we want. That is "the set whose only member is the empty set". The "intersection of all subspaces of V" is the set whose only member is the 0 vector, {0}.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K