Vector Space Axioms: 4 Rules to Redefine

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the axioms defining a vector space, specifically an attempt to shorten and generalize these axioms to just four. Participants explore the implications of this reduction and whether certain axioms can be derived from the proposed set.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a set of four axioms for a vector space, suggesting that they can derive commutativity and associativity from these axioms.
  • Another participant argues that the proposed axioms are insufficient, asserting that axioms like commutativity and associativity are necessary to define a vector space.
  • A third participant reiterates the proposed axioms and provides a specific model using integers, noting that while some axioms hold, commutativity does not.
  • A later reply suggests modifications to the model that still fail to satisfy commutativity and associativity, indicating that the proposed axioms do not lead to a standard vector space structure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the sufficiency of the proposed four axioms, with some asserting that additional axioms are necessary for a proper definition of a vector space.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the derivation of certain properties from the proposed axioms and highlight limitations in the models discussed, particularly regarding the failure of commutativity and associativity.

pjallen58
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I am trying to shorten and generalize the the definition of a vector space to redefine it in such a way that only four axioms are required. The axioms must hold for all vectors u, v and w are in V and all scalars c and d.

I believe the four would be:

1. u + v is in V,
2. u + 0 = u
3. u + -u = 0
4. cu is in V

I believe 1 and 2 can be used to satisfy:

u + v = v + u
(u + v) + w = u + (v + w)

and 3 and 4 can be used to satisfy:

c(u + v) = cu + cv
(c + d)u = cu + du
c(du) = (cd)u
1u = u

Not sure if I am on the right track here so any suggestions or corrections would be appreciated. Thanks to all who reply.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually I think that all the axioms are necessary, and if you leave out for example the commutativity or associativity axiom you don't get what people would ordinarily call a vector space.
If you think that you would, you should prove for example that "u + v = v + u" indeed follow from the four axioms you have, as you claim, though I wouldn't see how that could be done. In fact, I don't even see how to prove something as simple as 0 + u = u without using at least associativity ((u + v) + w = u + (v + w)) and -(-u) = u.
 
pjallen58 said:
I believe the four would be:

1. u + v is in V,
2. u + 0 = u
3. u + -u = 0
4. cu is in V

I believe 1 and 2 can be used to satisfy:

u + v = v + u
(u + v) + w = u + (v + w)

A model for axioms 1 and 2 would be:
[tex]V:=\mathbb{Z}[/tex]
[tex]u\mathbf{+}v:=u-v[/tex]
[tex]\mathbf{0}:=0[/tex]

where 1 holds by the closure of integers under subtraction and 2 holds by the additive identity of integers. But in this model [itex]u+v\neq v+u[/itex] for most u and v.
 
Ah! If you define [itex]-v:=v[/itex] and [itex]cv:=v[/itex] in the above model, you can see that 1, 2, 3, and 4 hold but commutativity still fails in general, as does (u + v) + w = u + (v + w). (It doesn't matter here, but let c be drawn from the reals.) With an appropriate step function instead for scalar multiplication (say cv := 0 for c = 0 and v = 1 and cv := v otherwise) you can make the scalar distribution properties fail as well.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K