Is the set of all continuous functions on the interval [0,1] a vector space?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the set of all continuous functions on the interval [0, 1] qualifies as a vector space. Participants agree that this set satisfies the vector space axioms, including closure under addition and scalar multiplication, as continuous functions remain continuous when these operations are applied. The conversation also touches on other sets, such as non-negative functions and symmetric matrices, exploring their adherence to vector space properties. Key points include the importance of proving that operations on these sets yield results within the same set. Overall, the discussion emphasizes understanding the foundational concepts of vector spaces and their axioms.
  • #31
Ok, I can't tell if you can see why the sum of two symmetic matrices is itself symmetric, or if you can see that it is so but can't think of a formal or acceptable way to prove it. Consider this then:

A matrix A is symmetric if for all its entries a_{ij}=a_{ji} Suppose there's another symmetric matrix B with the same property.

The sum of the 2 matrices is C and a typical matrix entry of C is c_{ij} = a_{ij} + b_{ij}. Now can you show if c_{ij} = c_{ji}?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Defennder said:
Ok, I can't tell if you can see why the sum of two symmetic matrices is itself symmetric, or if you can see that it is so but can't think of a formal or acceptable way to prove it. Consider this then:

A matrix A is symmetric if for all its entries a_{ij}=a_{ji} Suppose there's another symmetric matrix B with the same property.

The sum of the 2 matrices is C and a typical matrix entry of C is c_{ij} = a_{ij} + b_{ij}. Now can you show if c_{ij} = c_{ji}?

How about this:
c_{ij} = a_{ij} + b_{ij}



c_{ji} = a_{ji} + b_{ji}

But since a_{ij}=a_{ji} and b_{ij}=b_{ji}

then c_{ij} = a_{ij} + b_{ij} =a_{ji} + b_{ji}=c_{ji}


Does that work? I think it does if I got my indexes right:redface:
 
  • #33
Yep that should do it. I don't know how formal you need that to be, though. I've never been a fan of mathematical formalism.
 
  • #34
Thanks!:smile:
 
  • #35
Hold on a second guys. I don't like to hijack what looks completed, but I am a little befuddled for part c. The polynomial 0 is not a polynomial of degree n, so how can we say a zero element exists? Furthermore it is not closed under addition, for example a=(x^2 + 1), b = -x^2... a+b is not a polynomial of degree 2. According to wikipedia, some sources choose to include the axioms of closure as additional vector space axioms.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Anyone else want to chime in? This is all new to me:rolleyes:

You can't just say that a+b is polynomial of degree n with zero coefficients?

But like I said, this is new to me. :smile:
 
  • #37
Saladsamurai said:
Anyone else want to chime in? This is all new to me:rolleyes:

You can't just say that a+b is polynomial of degree n with zero coefficients?

But like I said, this is new to me. :smile:

nicksauce makes a good point. The question does say "degree EXACTLY n". The 'exactly' is likely there for a reason.
 
  • #38
Okee-dokee. So since there is some polynomial of degree exactly n that when added to some other polynomial of exactly degree n does not YIELD a polynomial of exactly degree n, then the set of all polynomials of exactly degree n IS NOT a vector space.

So my coefficients of zero thing in post #36 is valid.
 
  • #39
Right. You could also think of cases like p=x^2 and q=x^2-x, so p-q=x. Not a polynomial of degree EXACTLY two. If they had said polynomial of degree two or less, then it would be a vector space.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K