Which of the directions of implication can you show, if any? The result follows from the definitions of all the words involved directly.
#3
zmdeez
2
0
i have sketched a couple ideas but i don't think they are legit...so i guess i can't show either direction, I am sure one is far simpler than the other i just can't get a good start
What is (your) definition of a vector subspace? Mine is that W is a subspace if W is a subset of V and for all x and y in W and s and t in R (or whatever the underlying field is, perhaps C) the sx+ty is in W and 0 is in W. (note this is redundant by settinf s=t=0)
What is the span of a subset? iti s the set of all combinations
t_1x_1+\ldots t_nx_n
for t_i in R (or the underlying field) and x_i in W
so W=span(W) means exactly that all finite combinations of elements of W are in W.
so we are trying to show that
W closed under combining (adding up) two elements of itself if and only if W is closed under combining a finite number of elements of itself.
Obvioulsy one way is simple: if i can add up any number of combinations of elements then i can in particular add up two of them. Conversely...?
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC).
Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?