Proving V is a Vector Space: Simplifying the Process with Axiom Lemma

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bachelier
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the process of proving that a set is a vector space (VS) by checking the axioms of vector spaces, specifically focusing on the use of a lemma that simplifies this process. The scope includes theoretical aspects of linear algebra and analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the cumbersome nature of checking all 8 axioms for vector spaces and questions whether the lemma regarding subspaces can be used to simplify this process.
  • Another participant agrees that if a set is a subset of an already established vector space, it suffices to check closure under scalar multiplication and vector addition to confirm it as a subspace.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that non-trivial subspaces of ##\mathbb{R}^{2}## can be classified as lines through the origin, proposing that checking if a set is a line or a trivial subspace is sufficient.
  • Further contributions mention alternative approaches, such as using the image or kernel of linear maps, or spans of subsets of bases, to demonstrate that a set is a subspace without checking all axioms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a general agreement on the tediousness of checking all axioms and the utility of the lemma, but there are differing views on the sufficiency of certain conditions for proving subspaces, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight that the applicability of the lemma depends on the context and the definitions used, and there may be unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the sets being discussed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and educators in linear algebra and analysis, particularly those exploring the properties of vector spaces and subspaces.

Bachelier
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
Though this may be related to lin. alg. but it deals with Analysis.

There are 8 axioms for Vector Spaces. To prove a space ##V## is a VS, one must check all 8 axioms (i.e. closure under addition, scalar multi. etc...)

My question is this, it seems cumbersome to have to do this every time. Would it be better to use the lemma that states: "A non∅ subset ##W## or a VS ##V## is a subspace ##iff##

##\alpha v + \beta w \in W, \forall \ v, w \in W, \ \alpha , \beta \in \mathbb{F} \ \ (1)##​
where ##\mathbb{F}## is the field of scalars.

First, would it be correct to use this "Lemma"?

And second, what should the encompassing VS be: because the lemma states ##W## is a subspace of a VS ##V##, but if I want to prove a set

##G \subsetneq \mathbb{R \times R}## is a VS, I guess I should aim to show it is subspace of the Vector Space ##\mathbb{R \times R}##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you know that a given set ##V## is already a vector space, and if ##W\subseteq V##, then all you need to check is that ##W## is closed under scalar multiplication and vector addition, which is what you wrote above. As for subspaces of ##\mathbb{R}^{2}##, if this is over the field ##\mathbb{R}## and under the usual scalar multiplication as well as vector addition then one can easily classify all non-trivial subspaces of ##\mathbb{R}^{2}## as lines through the origin. All you need to do is check that ##G## is a line through the origin or is a trivial subspace of ##\mathbb{R}^{2}##.
 
For sure, it is tedious having to go through all 8 axioms. In any class beyond an intro to linear algebra class, you could simply say "it's easy to see that W is a subspace".

You can also phrase things in a slightly clever way (again, if your audience has the background):

* W is the image of a linear map f : X -> V (for some vectorspace X). It's easy to prove the image of a linear map is a subspace of the codomain.

* W is the kernel of a linear map f : V -> X (for some vectorspace X). Again, kernels are always subspaces.

* If you have a basis B = b1, b2, ..., bn for V, you can always take some subset B' of those b_i's and take W to be the span of B'. Spans are basically a way to satisfy all the closure requirements.
 
Cool. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
430
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
2K