I S is set of all vectors of form (x,y,z) such that x=y or x =z. Basis?

Hall
Messages
351
Reaction score
87
##S## is a set of all vectors of form ##(x,y,z)## such that ##x=y## or ##x=z##. Can ##S## have a basis?

S contains either ##(x,x,z)## type of elements or ##(x,y,x)## type of elements.

Case 1: ## (x,x,z)= x(1,1,0)+z(0,0,1)##
Hencr, the basis for case 1 is ##A = \{(1,1,0), (0,0,1)##\}

And similarly for case 2 the basis would be ##A'= \{ (1,0,1), (0,1,0)\} ##.

But how to find the basis for ##S##? A union of A and A' would give us a set whose linear span would go beyond S and hence cannot be a basis for S. Can S have a basis? How do we find it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
:welcome:

Perhaps you should check whether ##S## is a vector (sub-) space?
 
PeroK said:
:welcome:

Perhaps you should check whether ##S## is a vector (sub-) space?
##(x,x,z)##, ##(x,y,x)## ##\in S##

## (2x, x+y, x+z)## is not in S. S is not a subspace.

Oh yes, thanks.
 
I think that's 95% of a proof, but if you want to be very technical, you should prove the thing you wrote down isn't actually of the form (x'x',z') or (x',y',x'). This is typically done by actually picking specific x,y,z and observing that it doesn't work.

Also, in case you didn't realize, you didn't actually pick generic elements of S, since you forced x to be the same in both of them. In some cases you could get unlucky and trick yourself into thinking it is a subspace doing this (obviously it works out ok here)
 
Office_Shredder said:
I think that's 95% of a proof, but if you want to be very technical, you should prove the thing you wrote down isn't actually of the form (x'x',z') or (x',y',x'). This is typically done by actually picking specific x,y,z and observing that it doesn't work.

Also, in case you didn't realize, you didn't actually pick generic elements of S, since you forced x to be the same in both of them. In some cases you could get unlucky and trick yourself into thinking it is a subspace doing this (obviously it works out ok here)
Well, the 2nd paragraph is really pedantic. Thanks.
 
Hall said:
Well, the 2nd paragraph is really pedantic.
On the contrary, I think @Office_Shredder makes a cogent point.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top