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

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
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top