MHB What Is Required to Prove a Subset is a Vector Space?

Click For Summary
To prove that a subset V of a vector space is itself a vector space, it must be shown that V is non-empty, closed under addition, and closed under scalar multiplication. The discussion clarifies that being non-empty and containing the zero vector are not equivalent on their own; however, if V is non-empty and closed under scalar multiplication, it must contain the zero vector. An empty set is closed under addition and scalar multiplication but does not contain the zero vector, reinforcing that it cannot be a subspace. The key takeaway is that the conditions for a subset to be a vector space are interrelated, particularly regarding the zero vector. Understanding these relationships resolves the initial confusion about the definitions.
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I have a theoretical question regarding subspaces.

If V is a subset of a vector space, and we wish to show that V is a vector space itself, we need to show 3 things.

Some references say we need to show: a) V is not empty b) V is closed under + c) V is closed under scalar multiplication. Other references are similar, with (a) being that V contains the 0 vector in it.

What I don't understand is:

1) Why being non empty and having the 0 vector is the same thing ?
2) I can't think of any example in which a set is closed under + and scalar multiplication, but does not contain the 0 vector. If this case exist, it ain't a subspace, but if the set isn't empty, it is ??

I am confused...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yankel said:
Hello all,

I have a theoretical question regarding subspaces.

If V is a subset of a vector space, and we wish to show that V is a vector space itself, we need to show 3 things.

Some references say we need to show: a) V is not empty b) V is closed under + c) V is closed under scalar multiplication. Other references are similar, with (a) being that V contains the 0 vector in it.

What I don't understand is:

1) Why being non empty and having the 0 vector is the same thing ?
2) I can't think of any example in which a set is closed under + and scalar multiplication, but does not contain the 0 vector. If this case exist, it ain't a subspace, but if the set isn't empty, it is ??

I am confused...

ad 1) I understand that you assume b) and c) and then want to show that the two formulations of condition a) are equivalent.

If $V$ is non-empty, then it contains a vector $x$. Now $V$ is closed under scalar multiplication, so $0\cdot x = \mathbf{0} \in V$, where $0$ is a scalar and $\mathbf{0}$ is the zero vector.

Conversely, if $V$ contains $\mathbf{0}$ then it is of course non-empty.

ad 2) You are right, the only such example would be the empty set: It is trivially closed under vector addition and scalar multiplication, but it does not contain the zero vector.
 
"Being non-empty" and "containing the 0 vector" are not the same thing, alone! However, with the other condirion, that the set is closed under scalar multiplication, they are.

Clearly, if a set "contains the 0 vector" then it "is non-empty" so that way is trivial. If a set "is non-empty" then it contains some, possibly non-zero, vector v. If the set is also "closed under scalar multiplication", then the set also contains 0(v)= 0, the 0 vector.
 
Thank you both.

Great explanations, all clear now ! :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K