The discussion revolves around proving that for a vector space V with an uncountable dimension and a basis B, there exists a subset S of B such that the union of S with a linearly independent subset K of V forms a basis for V. Participants explore various approaches, including Zorn's Lemma and transfinite induction, to establish the existence of such a subset S. A key challenge noted is demonstrating that certain unions of subsets remain in the collection of subsets that satisfy the basis condition. The conversation highlights the importance of considering maximal independent sets and using iterative algorithms for clarity in proofs. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the interplay between different mathematical principles to solve the problem effectively.
#1
andytoh
357
3
Let B be a basis for a vector space V (with an uncountable dimension!) over a field F, and let K be a linearly independent subset of V. Prove that there exists a subset S of B such that K U S is a basis for V.
I had to struggle a bit for this one. But I think I got it.
An alternate solution using Zorn's Lemma coming up...
Let A be the collection of all subsets T of V such that for any linearly independent subset K of V containing vectors only from T, there exists a subset S of B so that
K U S is a basis for V. A is nonempty since B is in A. Partially order A by set inclusion. Let C = {C_i} be a totally ordered subcollection of A, and let D= U(C_i). Clearly D is an upper bound of C since every element in C is a subset of D.
Guys, I'm having trouble showing that D is in A. The problem is that any independent set containing elements only from D may be infinite, so the total orderedness of C is not helping. Can anyone pitch in here?
I tend to use the well-ordering principle for most of my axiom of choice needs -- the reason is because I can usually write down an iterative algorithm to produce the answer I want.
In general, I think that if you cannot write down some intuitively simple algorithm like I did, then a well-ordering style proof is going to be much more difficult than it needs to be.
I guess -- the trick is to use transfinite recursion or iteration to 'compute' an answer, and then use transfinite induction to prove that each intermediate stage has the correct properties, and then from there you prove that the answer has the correct properties.
An alternate solution using Zorn's Lemma coming up...
Let A be the collection of all subsets T of V such that for any linearly independent subset K of V containing vectors only from T, there exists a subset S of B so that
K U S is a basis for V. A is nonempty since B is in A. Partially order A by set inclusion. Let C = {C_i} be a totally ordered subcollection of A, and let D= U(C_i). Clearly D is an upper bound of C since every element in C is a subset of D.
Guys, I'm having trouble showing that D is in A. The problem is that any independent set containing elements only from D may be infinite, so the total orderedness of C is not helping. Can anyone pitch in here?
Hrm. I'm having a little difficulty deciphering your intent here. Can you summarize your proof, skipping over all of the little details aside from the application of Zorn's lemma?
#7
andytoh
357
3
Ok:
Let A be the collection of all subsets T of V such that for any linearly independent subset K of V containing vectors only from T, there exists a subset S of B so that
K U S is a basis for V. A is nonempty since B is in A. Partially order A by set inclusion. Let C = {C_i} be a totally ordered subcollection of A, and let D= U(C_i). D is an upper bound of C in A (this is where I'm stuck). By Zorn's Lemma, A has a maximal element M.
If M not=V, take v from V-M. Then MU{v} is also in A (this point I've already proven, though it was long), contradicting the maximality of M in A. Thus M=V.
whats wrong with taking a maximal independent set of form K union S, as above?
perhaps you are doing this, but less briefly.
#9
andytoh
357
3
mathwonk said:
whats wrong with taking a maximal independent set of form K union S, as above?
Oh daymnn! That's so clever! This must be done for every independent set K, of course, but that's no extra work at all. I was restricting myself to just one partially ordered set A. I never thought of using a family of partially ordered sets A_K. Wow!
just take your one given independent set K, and consider all independent sets of form KunionS where S is a subset of the basis B. This collection is trivially inductive (take unions as always), hence has a maximal element.
obviously a maximl KunionS spans since otherwise some element of b is not spanned, which means adding it gives a larger independent set. QED.