MHB So V is not vector over field \Bbb{R}

  • Thread starter Thread starter Another1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Vector
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the set V, defined as R^2 with specific operations for addition and scalar multiplication, qualifies as a vector space over the field R. The operation for addition is standard, but the scalar multiplication defined as k ⊙ u = (2ku_1, 2ku_2) deviates from the usual definition. A key point raised is that the additive inverse property does not hold, as shown by the calculation that (-u) + u does not equal the zero vector. Additionally, the condition for scalar multiplication where 1 ⊙ u must equal u for all u in R^2 is not satisfied, further confirming that V does not meet the criteria to be a vector space over R. Thus, V is not a vector space over the field R.
Another1
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
I don't understand, please ckeck

$$Let$$ $$V=\Bbb{R}^2$$ and $${u=(u_1,u_2), v=(v_1.v_2)}\in\Bbb{R}^2$$ , $${k}\in \Bbb{R}$$ define of operation $$u\oplus v = (u_1+v_1,u_2+v_2)$$ and $$k \odot u =(2ku_1,2ku_2)$$ check V is vector over field $$\Bbb{R}$$ ?
________________________________________________________________
I think
in a property of the additive inverse $$(-u)+u=0=u+(-u)$$

from define $$k \odot u =(2ku_1,2ku_2)$$
So $$(-1)u = (-1) \odot u =(2(-1)u_1,2(-1)u_2) = (-2u_1,-2u_2) $$
$$(-u)+u = (-2u_1,-2u_2) + (u_1,u_2)\ne 0$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Another.

In a vector space $V$ over a field $F$, we need to have for every $v\in V$ that
$$1_F\cdot v\ =\ v$$
where $1_F$ is the multiplicative identity in $F$. Is this condition satisfied for the scalar multiplication $\odot$ in this problem? In other words, is
$$1\odot u\ =\ u$$
true for all $u\in\mathbb R^2$?
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K