Prove: r\vec{0} = \vec{0} in Vector Space Over F

  • Thread starter Thread starter iamalexalright
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Vector
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the property \( r\vec{0} = \vec{0} \) in the context of a vector space \( V \) over a field \( F \). Participants explore the implications of the definitions and properties of vector spaces, particularly focusing on scalar multiplication and the identity element of vector addition.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use properties of vector spaces to prove the statement but questions the validity of their assumptions regarding the zero vector. Other participants inquire about the definition of the zero vector and its implications for the proof. Some suggest applying definitions and properties directly to simplify the reasoning.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering hints and clarifications. There is a recognition of the need to apply the definition of the zero vector and explore its properties in relation to scalar multiplication. While some participants express confusion, others provide guidance that helps clarify the path forward.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the assumptions made regarding the zero vector and its properties, particularly in relation to scalar multiplication. The conversation reflects a mix of attempts to prove the statement and clarifications about definitions.

iamalexalright
Messages
157
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


V is a vector space over F.
Prove r\vec{0} = \vec{0}
for all r in F and v in V.

Homework Equations


Properties of a vector space:
1. associativity
2. commutativity
3. zero vector
4. additive inverse
5. scalar multiplication:
1u = u (and a few others)I worked this similar to another proof:
r\vec{0} = r(\vec{0} + \vec{0})

r\vec{0} = r\vec{0} + r\vec{0}

r\vec{0} + (-r\vec{0}) = (r\vec{0} + r\vec{0}) + (-r\vec{0})

r\vec{0} + (-r\vec{0}) = r\vec{0} + (r\vec{0} + (-r\vec{0}))

\vec{0} = r\vec{0} + \vec{0}

\vec{0} = r\vec{0}

There may be other issues but my main one is that I assume:
r\vec{0} + (-r\vec{0}) = \vec{0}
where in our definitions we only give(ie, not multiplied by a scalar):
\vec{v} + (-\vec{v}) = \vec{0}

Now if I try to prove that rv + -rv = 0 I have to use the proof of the original problem !

Am I going about this the wrong way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi iamalexalright.

What is the definition of the zero vector ?
 
It's the identity element: leaves a vector unchanged when you have vector addition:
v + 0 = 0 + v = 0
 
That's right.
The zero vector is the identity element for the sum.
So, it is unique and satisfies the condition v + 0 = 0 + v = v, for all v \inV.

This definition plus scalar multiplication plus associativity is all you need to proof that r\vec{0}=\vec{0}
 
I don't see it : /

If I start with the condition:
v + 0 = 0 + v = v

multiply by scalar r and start to simplify I don't get to where I need to be : /

Any more hints?
 
Apply the definition of vector zero to the vector v=r\vec{a}
 
Could this work?
\vec{a} = \vec{a} + \vec{0}
multiply by scalar r
r\vec{a} = r\vec{a} + r\vec{0}
Since ra is in V, let v = ra
\vec{v} = \vec{v} + r\vec{0}
add the additive inverse of v
\vec{v} + (-\vec{v}) = (\vec{v} + r\vec{0}) + (-\vec{v})
associativity
\vec{v} + (-\vec{v}) = (\vec{v} + (-\vec{v}) + r\vec{0}
additive inverse
\vec{0} = \vec{0} + r\vec{0}
identity element for sum
\vec{0} = r\vec{0}
 
You got it !
But no need to go beyond the second expression you wrote.

1: r\vec{a}=r(\vec{a}+\vec{0})=r\vec{a}+r\vec{0}
2: r\vec{a}=r(\vec{0}+\vec{a})=r\vec{0}+r\vec{a}

From 1) and 2) you see that r\vec{0} is such a vector that leaves unchanged the vector r\vec{a}, which is an arbitrary vector of the vector space V.

But there is only one vector that satisfies this condition: the \vec{0} vector. So r\vec{0}=\vec{0}, as we wanted to prove.
 
Ah, I see what you were getting at now. I forgot about the lefthand/righthand side (I know there is a better name for this...).

Thanks for the help Karlx!
 
  • #10
iamalexalright said:
Ah, I see what you were getting at now. I forgot about the lefthand/righthand side (I know there is a better name for this...).

Thanks for the help Karlx!

It's usually called the cancellation rule, and it's one of the first things most linear algebra books prove (for obvious reasons...)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K