Proving the Vector Space Property: cv = 0, v ≠ 0 → c = 0

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the vector space property that states if \( cv = 0 \) and \( v \neq 0 \), then \( c = 0 \). Participants explore various approaches to this problem, including algebraic manipulations and definitions related to vector spaces and fields.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that proving \( cv = 0 \) and \( v \neq 0 \) implies \( v = 0 \) is straightforward if one can multiply by \( c^{-1} \), but notes that this is not applicable in vector spaces.
  • Another participant proposes that multiplying by the inverse of \( c \) could lead to a contradiction, implying \( v = 0 \). However, this assumes \( c \neq 0 \).
  • A different approach is mentioned involving thinking about the components of the vectors, which may either complicate or simplify the proof.
  • One participant introduces an alternate definition of a vector space using an embedding of a field into the endomorphism ring of an abelian group, suggesting that this perspective could help derive the desired result.
  • Another participant outlines a method involving taking a new scalar from the field and manipulating the equation \( cv = 0 \) to show that \( c \) must be zero.
  • A participant emphasizes that vector spaces are defined over fields and that the components of vectors are elements of the field.
  • One participant summarizes a contradiction method: assuming \( cv = 0 \) and \( v \neq 0 \) while \( c \neq 0 \) leads to \( v = 0 \), which contradicts the assumption.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best approach to prove the statement, with no consensus reached on a single method or solution. Multiple competing views remain regarding the validity and applicability of the proposed methods.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference the properties of vector spaces and fields, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions and properties being used in the proofs. The discussion reflects a variety of mathematical reasoning without a clear resolution.

bjgawp
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
I'm considering the problem: Given [tex]c \in \bold{F}[/tex], [tex]v \in V[/tex] where F is a field and V a vector space, show that [tex]cv = 0, v \neq 0 \ \Rightarrow \ c = 0[/tex]

I've been wrapping my head around this one for a while now but I can't seem to get it. Proving that if cv = 0 and v [tex]\neq[/tex] 0 implies v = 0 is easy since we can simply multiply by [tex]c^{-1}[/tex] but in vector space, we don't have that kind of inverse for vectors seeing how we only have scalar multiplication.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But can you not simply multiply by the inverse of c to get a contradiction - that is v=0?
 
bjgawp said:
I'm considering the problem: Given [tex]c \in \bold{F}[/tex], [tex]v \in V[/tex] where F is a field and V a vector space, show that [tex]cv = 0, v \neq 0 \ \Rightarrow \ c = 0[/tex]

I've been wrapping my head around this one for a while now but I can't seem to get it. Proving that if cv = 0 and v [tex]\neq[/tex] 0 implies v = 0 is easy since we can simply multiply by [tex]c^{-1}[/tex] but in vector space, we don't have that kind of inverse for vectors seeing how we only have scalar multiplication.
Since c is NOT a vector that doesn't matter!
 
When stuck, think about the components. It will get you more stuck or get you an easy proof.
 
A "fancy" way to do it if you don't like the coordinate way is to take the alternate definition of a vector space as an embedding of a field into the endomorphism ring of an abelian group. The map for the embedding is just:

[tex]\theta: F \rightarrow End(A), c \rightarrow cI[/tex]

Where I is the identity matrix. Then if [tex]v \in A[/tex] what we normally write as [tex]cv[/tex] is just [tex]\theta(c)(v)[/tex] and you can use that to read off all of the vector space properties.

Then [tex]\theta(c)(v) = 0[/tex] means that [tex]v \in Ker(\theta(c))[/tex] and that should give you the result that you're looking for considering that [tex]\theta(c)[/tex] is invertible by virtue of being in a subfield of End(A).

EDIT: I should note that you can't use the map that I gave you in the definition because we're conflating the Matn(A) with End(A) but they are isomorphic. I gave it to you so that you would know what the map is. In reality, you would prove that the map induces a ring homomorphism as advertised. This is just a simple exercise. To take it as the definition of a vector space, you assume that the embedding is given.
 
Last edited:
Suppose cv=0, v =/= 0

then take a new scalar from F (call it a)

a*(cv)=a*0
(ac)(v)=0
ca(v)=0
c(av)=0

Then c * (the whole vector space spanned by v) = 0
Since this is a vector space, c must be 0 (I forget the name of this property).
 
the vector spaces are over fields, the components of a vector are elements of the field
 
I guess Vee's method is the simplest:

Assume, by contradiction, that [tex]cv=0[/tex] and [tex]v\neq 0[/tex], but [tex]c\neq 0[/tex]. Then the inverse [tex]c^{-1}[/tex] exists, and multiplying [tex]cv=0[/tex] to the left with it we get [tex]c^{-1}cv=c^{-1}0[/tex], i.e. [tex]v=0[/tex], in contradiction with [tex]v\neq 0[/tex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K