There is a difference between the multiplication op in the Field of Reals and the Scaling op in the Set of Vectors. In the Field, the op is a closed mapping between two members within the same Set, whereas in the Set of Vectors, the op is a mapping between a member of the Set of Vectors and a member from the Set of Scalars (a different set entirely) that is closed within the Set of Vectors. The question arises: if we now let the Set of Vectors become one and the same with the Set of Scalars (i.e., the Field of Reals), do we indeed still have a Vector Space that is also a Field or do we just have a Field? If we just have a Field, is it still a full fledged Vector Space? I am uncertain of the answer as all Vector expressions would resolve to a single numerical value, collapsing the internal mechanical workings that make a Vector Space useful as a model for Physical processes.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Additional question: If the Field of Reals is duplicated so that we have a pair of twin Fields and we can, in theory, keep them entirely separate, can we answer the above question by saying "we have a Field of Reals as a Vector Space over a twin Field of Reals and we genuinely have a Vector Space in its conventional form"?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Is the Field of Reals in and of itself a Vector Space?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Field Reals itself | Date |
---|---|

I Need clarification on a theorem about field extensions/isomorphisms | Dec 19, 2017 |

I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.6 ... | Jun 23, 2017 |

I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.5 ... | Jun 22, 2017 |

How to find a basis for the vector space of real numbers over the field Q? | Oct 11, 2012 |

Why must inner product spaces be over the field of real or complex numbers? | Dec 7, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**