MHB Proving $\{w_1, \ldots , w_m\}$ is a Basis of $\text{Lin}(v_1, \ldots , v_k)$

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $v_1, \ldots , v_k\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Show that there exist $w_1, \ldots , w_m\in \{v_1, \ldots , v_k\}$ such that $(w_1, \ldots , w_m)$ is a basis of $\text{Lin}(v_1, \ldots , v_k)$. I have done the following:

A basis of $\text{Lin}(v_1, \ldots , v_k)$ is a linearly independent set of vectors of $\{v_1, \ldots , v_k\}$.

So let $\{w_1, \ldots , w_m\}\subseteq \{v_1, \ldots , v_k\}$ be a linearly independent set.

$\text{Lin}(v_1, \ldots , v_k)$ is the set of all linear combinations of $v_1, \ldots , v_k$. So it left to show that we can express every linear combination of that set using the vectors $\{w_1, \ldots , w_m\}$, or not? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Let $1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $v_1, \ldots , v_k\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Show that there exist $w_1, \ldots , w_m\in \{v_1, \ldots , v_k\}$ such that $(w_1, \ldots , w_m)$ is a basis of $\text{Lin}(v_1, \ldots , v_k)$. I have done the following:

A basis of $\text{Lin}(v_1, \ldots , v_k)$ is a linearly independent set of vectors of $\{v_1, \ldots , v_k\}$.

So let $\{w_1, \ldots , w_m\}\subseteq \{v_1, \ldots , v_k\}$ be a linearly independent set.

$\text{Lin}(v_1, \ldots , v_k)$ is the set of all linear combinations of $v_1, \ldots , v_k$. So it left to show that we can express every linear combination of that set using the vectors $\{w_1, \ldots , w_m\}$, or not?

Hey mathmari!

Yes, a basis must also span the space. (Thinking)
 
That was implied in the first post. mathmari said that the basis we seek is a linearly independent subset of \{v_1, v_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, v_k\} which was already said to span the space.

mathmari, you say "let \{w_1, w_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, w_m\}\subseteq \{v_1, v_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, v_k\}<br /> be a linearly independent subset". You are missing the crucial point- proving that such a linearly independent subset, that still spans the space, exists! You need to say something like "If \{v_1, v_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, v_k\}<br />, which spans the space, is also linearly independent then we are done- it is a basis. If not then there exist numbers, \alpha_1, \alpha_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, \alpha_k, not all 0, such that \alpha_1v_1+ \alpha_2v_2+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ \alpha_kv_k= 0. Let \alpha_n be one of the non-zero \alphas. Then v_n= -\frac{1}{\alpha_n}(\alpha_1v_1+ \alpha_2v_2+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ \alpha_{n-1}v_{n-1}+ \alpha_{n+2}v_{n+2}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ \alpha_kv_k) so that v_n can be replaced by that linear combination of the other vectors. This smaller set of vectors still spans the vector space. If it is linearly independent we are done, we have a basis. If it is not repeat the process. Since the initial set of vectors was finite, this will eventually terminate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I got it! Thank you very much! (Smile)
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K