#proof about subspace
79 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
- Do not ping the Moderators, unless someone is breaking the rules.
- Do not ping the Helper Moderators, unless there is a conflict between helpers.
- Do not ping other members randomly for help.
- Ask your question and show the work you've done so far. If you've posted a screenshot of a question, specify which part you need help with.
- Wait patiently for a helper to come along.
- If the Helper has answered your question, remember to thank them with the Mathematics Ranks bot and close the thread with:
+close
Feel free to nominate the person for helper of the week in #helper-nominations
If you're happy with the help you got here, and the server overall, you can contribute financially as well:
Here's my proof for (a)(->): Since W is a subspace of V, W is a vector space with the operations defined on V. Therefore, 0 is in W by VS 3.
the proof in text is longer so I'm wondering if it's valid
That's the wrong direction.
What you're actually saying would be a proof that W being a subspace would imply condition a.
yeah that's what I'm saying but why is that the wrong direction?
Because the forward implication is that a subset of V which satisfies the three conditions is a subspace of V.
ok if it’s backward then is the proof valid?
@grave monolith What's your definition of vector subspace?
I'm under the impression that people just learn what you showed in the theorem as a definition
Yeah ok I see, then
I think there's something missing sorta?
like, say the 0 of V is denoted 0_V
And the 0 of W is denoted 0_W
there is essentially no reason why they should be the same thing at this stage yet
The point (a) argues that 0_V is in W, which you have yet to prove
You know that 0_W is in W, but not that 0_V is in W
(it should be noted that for a vector space V, the 0_V given by VS 3 is provably unique, which has important consequences)
How do I know it’s who’s 0 in (a)?
First of all, did you prove uniqueness of the zero?
in a vector space
Let’s say there’s 01 and 02, then x+01=x=x+02, and by theorem 1.1 in the book 01=02, so 0 is unique
Nice, thanks for that
So this makes things a whole lot easier
you just have to verify that 0_V is a neutral element of W, as in, it is a good candidate to be a 0_W
by uniqueness, it is the 0_W
I’m not sure what neutral element means, does that imply I have to show 0_v + x=x for all x in W?
In general, do we need to say that what 0 being mentioned?
The origin, the zero
So you know W has a unique element 0_W that verifies x + 0_W = 0_W + x = x for all x in W
But you don't yet know whether or not 0_W = 0_V
But you can prove that 0_V is also in W and verifies the same properties
And by uniqueness, 0_V = 0_W
Yeah it's ambiguous here
Why would 0_V be in there?
Because W is a subset of V, so for every x in W, 0_V+x=x holds, so 0_V is a zero element for W
0_V is indeed a zero element for W, but this does not yet guarantee that 0_V is in W
Here's another hint: take any element in W, say w
What is w + (-1)w?
But doesn’t W have a zero element?
It does, it's a vector space and verifies VS 3
You know:
- 0_V is in V
- 0_W is in W
- 0_V verifies 0_V + x = x + 0_V = x for all x in W
You don't know, but must prove one of the two following:
- 0_V is in W
- 0_V = 0_W
(Note that here, if you can prove one of the two, the other one follows automatically)
If I prove the zero element for w is unique, then 0_V = 0_W?
You already know it's unique
But if 0_V is in W, it is a fortiori a zero element in W, therefore it is the zero element of W
conversely, if 0_V = 0_W, it is obvious that 0_V is in W
so you have to prove that one of the two holds, at least
But 0_V and 0_W are both zero element for W, and also zero is unique, what am I missing?
You can imagine a situation where 0_W is not equal to 0_V
so it is a nonzero element of V that acts like a zero only on W
Such a situation cannot happen, indeed, but it has not yet been proven why
To be clear, you have not yet proved why. Lest you believe there are unproven mathematical statements which are accepted as fact.
Doesn’t that mean we have 2 zeros for W?
Why? If 0_W exists such that for all x in W, x + 0_W = x, but there exists y in V such that y + 0_W =/= y, then you could have 0_W in W and 0_V not in W.
No, the zero in W is unique, but it may not necessarily be the zero as in 0_V until proven so
Hypothetically, unless you can prove we can't.
nothing says that the red dot should be exactly the black dot
(It is true that a situation where 0_W is different from 0_V cannot happen, but you must show why)
When I prove uniqueness of zero, I used theorem 1.1, which assumes the vectors are from the same vector space
0_W
On the one hand, yes
But on the other hand, w is also a vector in V since W is a subset of V
So?
also equals to 0_V
Conclusion?
0_V = 0_W so 0_V is in W
Good job
Thx a lot
Yes, and 0_W is unique in W.
+close
Please thank the helpers who assisted you by clicking the buttons below. You can thank each helper only once. Once you're done, click "Close Post" to close this thread.
Thank you for your feedback! Save humanity by destroying it has been awarded 1
. They now have 103
. They have 3
daily left for today.
Thank you for your feedback! Techie Literate has been awarded 1
. They now have 1053
. They have 3
daily left for today.