de_brook
- 74
- 0
Is there a linear space V in which the union of any subspaces of V is a subspace except the trivial subspaces V and {0}? pls help
The discussion revolves around the properties of unions of subspaces within a linear space, specifically whether the union of any subspaces can itself be a subspace, except in trivial cases. The scope includes theoretical considerations of linear algebra and dimensionality of vector spaces.
Participants generally agree that in dimensions less than two, the only subspaces are trivial. However, there is disagreement regarding the existence of a space in higher dimensions where the union of subspaces could be a subspace, with some asserting "No" and others questioning further.
The discussion highlights the dependence on the dimensionality of the vector space and the nature of the subspaces involved. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of subspaces and the implications of linear combinations.
yyat said:A vector space V can only have non-trivial subspaces if \dim V\ge 2.
This means you can choose two linearly independent vectors u, w, which generate 1-dimensional subspaces U, W respectively. Can U\cup W be a subspace? Hint: try to find a linear combination of u,w that is not in U\cup W.
de_brook said:I have tried searching for such spaces but i could only find for spaces whose dimension is less than 2.
yyat said:\dim\mathbb{R}^n=n, surely you knew that?
yyat said:\dim\mathbb{R}^n=n, surely you knew that?
yyat said:\dim\mathbb{R}^n=n, surely you knew that?
ThirstyDog said:I think the short answer is No.
ThirstyDog said:If the dimension of the space is less than two then the only subspace are V and {0} as yyat pointed out. Hence your question is answered in this case.
If the dimension of the space is greater or equal to two then consider spaces X and Y generated by linearly independent vectors x and y. x+y does not belong to X \Cup Y. Implying you can't pick any subspaces and the union will be a subspace.