1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Vector Space Axioms

  1. May 13, 2008 #1
    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 13, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
  4. May 13, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    A model for axioms 1 and 2 would be:

    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.
  5. May 13, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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: May 13, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?