Does Subset Inclusion Imply Span Inclusion in Vector Spaces?

[TranscendArcu]

Homework Statement

Suppose V is a vector space. Let E,F be subsets of V. Show E \subseteq F \Leftrightarrow L(E) \subseteq L(F)

The Attempt at a Solution

Let x \in L(E), there are scalars q_i such that x = \sum_{i} q_i p_i where p_i \in E. p_i \in F because E \subseteq F. Thus it is shown that x \in L(F). From this result, L(E) is a subset of L(F).

First of all, I'm not sure if this is a convincing proof or if I have notated it correctly. Second, I don't think I understand the proof very well. For example, why is it (if this proof is true) that p_i \in E? Similarly, is q_i \in E? If so, how is this known? Mostly, what I think I'd like to see is a less mathy and more wordy explanation of what's going on here.

Thanks!

 

[Mark44]

Homework Statement

Suppose V is a vector space. Let E,F be subsets of V. Show E \subseteq F \Leftrightarrow L(E) \subseteq L(F)

Other notation I've seen is Span(E). I believe this is what you mean when you write L(F), the set of all linear combinations of vectors in F.

The Attempt at a Solution

Let x \in L(E), there are scalars q_i such that x = \sum_{i} q_i p_i where p_i \in E. p_i \in F because E \subseteq F. Thus it is shown that x \in L(F). From this result, L(E) is a subset of L(F).

Your notation is a bit on the hard side to read, partly because there is a lot you're not saying. For example, I assume you mean that the p_i's are a basis for E. Also, your notation makes it difficult to tell scalars from vectors. Making the vectors bold would help alleviate that difficulty.

I would also recommend using different letters for the vectors in the two sets. Instead of x and p_i, I would use e as a vector in E, and e₁, ..., e_n as basis vectors, and maybe c₁, ..., c_n for the scalars.

First of all, I'm not sure if this is a convincing proof or if I have notated it correctly. Second, I don't think I understand the proof very well. For example, why is it (if this proof is true) that p_i \in E?

It's possible that p_i does not belong to E, such as if E = {0}.

Similarly, is q_i \in E?

No. The q_i's are scalars, so they belong to some field, not to a vector space. That's what I meant about your notation being confusing - you have managed to confuse yourself.

If so, how is this known? Mostly, what I think I'd like to see is a less mathy and more wordy explanation of what's going on here.

Thanks!

Don't forget that this is an if and only if proof, so you need to go the other way, as well.

 

[Dansuer]

I assume you mean that the p_i's are a basis for E.

p_i are not bases for E(they can be though) since E is not a vector space, it's a SUBSET of V. L(E) it's a vector space on the other hand but the p_i might be or might be not bases for L(E)

For examples.

V = ℝ^2

E = \left\{ (1,0),(0,1),(1,1),(2,1) \right\} \subseteq V

L(E) = ℝ^2 but E is not a basis forℝ^2 since E is not linearly independent.

Why is it true that p_i \in E ? Well that comes from the definition of span of a subset ( L(E ), which is:

L(E) is the set containing all the linear combinations of the elements of E.
in formula L(E) = \left\{ r_1e_1 + r_2e_2 + ... + r_ie_i | e_i \in E , r_i \in R \right\}

or more generally if you know what a field K is

L(E) = \left\{ r_1e_1 + r_2e_2 + ... + r_ie_i | e_i \in E , r_i \in K \right\}

you can rewrite this in a more compact form, and using p_i instead of e_i and q_i insted of r_iL(E) = \left\{ \sum q_ip_i| p_i \in E , q_i \in K \right\}

so saying that x \in L(E) means that there exist some p_i \in E, q_i \in K for which x = \sum q_ip_i. Does this answer your question?