Understanding Vector Spaces in Linear Algebra

Parthalan
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I recently bought a new linear algebra book. I've been through the subject before, but the book I had back then glossed over the abstract details of vector spaces, amongst other things. However, I've found something questionable in the first few pages, and I was wondering if someone could give me their opinion on. It states:

To clearly identify \mathbf{p} as a point, the notation \mathbf{p} \in \mathbb{E}^n is used.
...
To clearly identify \mathbf{v} as a vector, we write \mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{R}^n
...
Points and vectors are different geometric entities. This is reiterated by saying they live in different spaces, \mathbb{E}^n and \mathbb{R}^n... The primary reason for differentiating between points and vectors to achieve geometric constructions which are coordinate independent.

I've no problem with any of this, but I have never seen any mention of this distinction before. This is compounded by the fact that Wikipedia seems to use the two spaces interchangeably in a context of vectors, and MathWorld seems to say that \mathbb{E}^n is just an older notation for \mathbb{R}^n. Is this just a case of people carelessly confusing the two, or is this book promoting nonsense?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is the distinction between and "Affine" space and a "Vector" space. For example, in E2, we can talk about lines through points and the distance between points but we do not add points or multiply points by numbers.

Of course, as soon as we set up a coordinate system in a plane, we can, as in basic calculus, talk about the vector from 0 to a point and so associate a vector with a point. Then it becomes R2.
 
Perfect! Thanks, HallsofIvy.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
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...
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...
Back
Top