Is it possible to have a vector space with restricted scalars?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether a specific set of vectors in Rn, defined by the condition that the first component is non-negative, forms a subspace of Rn. Participants are examining the properties of vector spaces and the implications of scalar multiplication within this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the criteria for a subset to be considered a subspace, particularly focusing on closure under addition and scalar multiplication. There is questioning of which specific conditions are not satisfied by the given set.

Discussion Status

Some participants have pointed out that the failure of closure under scalar multiplication is a key issue. Others have raised concerns about the implications of restricting the scalar field, suggesting that this might lead to confusion regarding the properties of vector spaces.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty about whether the problem statement implies a restriction on the scalar field, which could affect the interpretation of the conditions necessary for the set to be a vector space.

jolly_math
Messages
51
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Is the following set of vectors a = (a1, ... a_n) in Rn subspaces of Rn (n≥3): all a such that a1 ≥ 0 ?
Relevant Equations
i) For vectors x and y in the subspace, x + y is in the subspace.
ii) For any vector x in the subspace, cx is in the subspace.
I don't understand the solution: that for (1, ..., 1) the additive inverse is (-1, ..., -1), so the condition is not satisfied (and it is not a subspace).

Which condition is not met?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jolly_math said:
Homework Statement:: Is the following set of vectors a = (a1, ... a_n) in Rn subspaces of Rn (n≥3): all a such that a1 ≥ 0 ?
Relevant Equations:: i) For vectors x and y in the subspace, x + y is in the subspace.
ii) For any vector x in the subspace, cx is in the subspace.

I don't understand the solution: that for (1, ..., 1) the additive inverse is (-1, ..., -1), so the condition is not satisfied (and it is not a subspace).

Which condition is not met?

Thank you.
The one you listed as ii) in your relevant equations. If u is in the set, cu also has to be in the set as one criterion of being a subspace. The vector u = <1, 1, ..., 1> is in your set, but -1u is not in the set, so the set isn't a subspace of ##\mathbb R^n##.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: jolly_math, berkeman and topsquark
The subset defined is not a vector space so it can not be a subspace. Check the properties of a vector space and you will see what they are talking about.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jolly_math
FactChecker said:
The subset defined is not a vector space so it can not be a subspace. Check the properties of a vector space and you will see what they are talking about.
Since the given set is a subset of something that is a vector space, it's not necessary to confirm that all vector space properties are satisfied. All that needs to be checked are closure under vector addition and closure under scalar multiplication. For this problem, it's the latter property that fails.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Mark44 said:
Since the given set is a subset of something that is a vector space, it's not necessary to confirm that all vector space properties are satisfied. All that needs to be checked are closure under vector addition and closure under scalar multiplication. For this problem, it's the latter property that fails.
Good point. It is not clear to me that the problem statement does not imply a restriction on the scalar field of reals. The definition of the subset might imply a restriction on the field so that the scalar multipliers are no longer a field. That might be where the original confusion occurred.
 
FactChecker said:
Good point. It is not clear to me that the problem statement does not imply a restriction on the scalar field of reals. The definition of the subset might imply a restriction on the field so that the scalar multipliers are no longer a field. That might be where the original confusion occurred.

The multipliers have to be a field to have a vector space. Trying to use something that's not a field gives surprisingly annoying behavior.
 
Office_Shredder said:
The multipliers have to be a field to have a vector space. Trying to use something that's not a field gives surprisingly annoying behavior.
Right. I should have mentioned that in my post (In editing, I deleted more than I meant to). It is not valid to interpret the scalars as being restricted so that they are not a field. But I think that might be what the OP had in mind.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K