Linear Algebra - Subspaces proof

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a specific set of elements in R² forms a subspace. The original poster presents a proof for the set of all (x,y) such that x = y, outlining the necessary conditions for a subspace.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate the three conditions for a subspace: containing the zero vector, closure under addition, and closure under scalar multiplication. Some participants question the clarity of notation used in the proof, particularly regarding the distinction between variables and vectors.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the proof, providing feedback on the original poster's reasoning and notation. There is a mix of agreement and suggestions for clarification, indicating a productive exchange of ideas without a clear consensus on the correctness of the proof.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight potential confusion in the notation used, suggesting that the distinction between different variables (e.g., v and V) needs to be clearer. There is also mention of simplifying the proof process for future reference.

mattmns
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
5
Hello, just wondering if my proof is sufficient.

Here is the question from my book:

Show that the following sets of elements in R2 form subspaces:
(a) The set of all (x,y) such that x = y.
-------

So if we call this set W, then we must show the following:
(i) [tex]0 \in W[/tex]
(ii) if [tex]v,w \in W[/tex], then [tex]v+w \in W[/tex]
(iii) if [tex]c \in R[/tex] and [tex]v \in W[/tex] then [tex]cv \in W[/tex]

Pf:
(i) [tex]0 \in W[/tex] because we can take x = 0 = y
(ii) if [tex]v,w \in W[/tex] then [tex](v,v) \in W[/tex] and [tex](w,w) \in W[/tex] and [tex](v,v) + (w,w) = (v + w, v + w) \in W[/tex] so [tex]v+w \in W[/tex] because v + w = x = y = v + w
(iii) if [tex]c \in R[/tex] and [tex]v \in W[/tex], then [tex](v,v) \in W[/tex] and [tex]c(v,v) = (cv,cv) \in W[/tex] so [tex]cv \in W[/tex] because cv = x = y = cv
Therefore W is a subspace.

Does that look just fine? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yah, looks good to me.
 
Cool, thanks!
 
No, that's not right, but the idea is correct. You state v is in W but then write the vector (v,v) is in W. The v in the brackets cannot be the v outside the brackets. You need to change that, v canont simultaneously be a vector in R^2 and elements of R.
 
Thanks matt, I think I am seeing what you are saying. So if I said V is in W, then (v,v) is in W, that would be correct? Because big V is not the same as little v. Thanks.
 
Yes, that would work. Although it might be even better to say:
V= (x,x), U= (y,y).
 
mattmns said:
Thanks matt, I think I am seeing what you are saying. So if I said V is in W, then (v,v) is in W, that would be correct? Because big V is not the same as little v. Thanks.
well, (v,v) is in W because of the definition of W, and is not deduced from V is in W. what you ought to say is if V in W then V=(v,v) for some v. there is no need to actually use V. W is closed under addition because (v,v)+(x,x)=(v+x,v+x).
 
Just for future reference, you can cut down the work for the proof for a subspace, simply by showing...

0 e W
cx+y e W, for any scalar c (depending on the field).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K