Simple Complex Vector Space Proof Clarification

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the proof that if cv = 0 for a vector v in a complex vector space V and a non-zero scalar c, then v must equal 0. The proof utilizes the property that c^(-1) exists because the complex numbers ℂ form a field. This existence is derived from field axioms rather than vector space axioms, confirming that the multiplicative inverse is valid for any non-zero scalar in this context. The participant expresses confidence in the proof once this clarification is established.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector space axioms
  • Familiarity with field axioms, particularly for complex numbers
  • Basic knowledge of scalar multiplication in vector spaces
  • Concept of multiplicative inverses in fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of fields, focusing on the field axioms of complex numbers
  • Explore the implications of scalar multiplication in vector spaces
  • Learn about the relationship between vector spaces and fields in linear algebra
  • Examine examples of vector spaces over different fields beyond ℝ and ℂ
USEFUL FOR

Students of linear algebra, mathematicians exploring vector spaces, and educators seeking to clarify concepts related to fields and vector space axioms.

RJLiberator
Gold Member
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
63

Homework Statement


Let v ∈ V and c ∈ ℂ, with c ≠ 0. Prove that if cv = 0, then v = 0.

Homework Equations


Vector space axioms.

The Attempt at a Solution



Simple proof overall, but I have one major clarification question.

v = 1v
= (c^(-1)c)v
= c^(-1) (cv)
= c^(-1) 0
v
= 0

My question is, in a complex vector space, is it safe to assume that c^(-1) exists in this proof?
If it does, I feel very confident about this proof.
If it doesn't then I need to do something else.

I don't see anywhere in the vector space axioms that states the multiplicative inverse exists.
But, it makes sense to me that an inverse does exist for any possible scalar choice here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
RJLiberator said:
But, it makes sense to me that an inverse does exist for any possible scalar choice here.

Yes indeed, because ##\mathbb{C}## is a field. More generally, one always speaks of a vector space over a field. (Real and complex numbers are the common choices, but there are others.) So the existence of ##\mathbb{c}^{-1}## for ##\mathbb{c} \neq 0## really follows from the field axioms, not from the vector space axioms.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RJLiberator
Beautiful! I was searching the vector space axioms and had them in my head. The field axioms clearly state this.

thank you, once again, Krylov.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: S.G. Janssens

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K