Linear Algebra - Subspaces proof

In summary, the following sets of elements in R2 form subspaces: (a) the set of all (x,y) such that x = y, (b) the subset of all (x,y) such that x+y = y, and (c) the subset of all (x,y) such that xy=0.
  • #1
mattmns
1,128
6
Hello, just wondering if my proof is sufficient.

Here is the question from my book:

Show that the following sets of elements in R2 form subspaces:
(a) The set of all (x,y) such that x = y.
-------

So if we call this set W, then we must show the following:
(i) [tex]0 \in W[/tex]
(ii) if [tex] v,w \in W[/tex], then [tex]v+w \in W[/tex]
(iii) if [tex]c \in R[/tex] and [tex]v \in W[/tex] then [tex]cv \in W[/tex]

Pf:
(i) [tex]0 \in W[/tex] because we can take x = 0 = y
(ii) if [tex]v,w \in W[/tex] then [tex](v,v) \in W[/tex] and [tex](w,w) \in W[/tex] and [tex](v,v) + (w,w) = (v + w, v + w) \in W[/tex] so [tex]v+w \in W[/tex] because v + w = x = y = v + w
(iii) if [tex]c \in R[/tex] and [tex]v \in W[/tex], then [tex](v,v) \in W[/tex] and [tex]c(v,v) = (cv,cv) \in W[/tex] so [tex]cv \in W[/tex] because cv = x = y = cv
Therefore W is a subspace.

Does that look just fine? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yah, looks good to me.
 
  • #3
Cool, thanks!
 
  • #4
No, that's not right, but the idea is correct. You state v is in W but then write the vector (v,v) is in W. The v in the brackets cannot be the v outside the brackets. You need to change that, v canont simultaneously be a vector in R^2 and elements of R.
 
  • #5
Thanks matt, I think I am seeing what you are saying. So if I said V is in W, then (v,v) is in W, that would be correct? Because big V is not the same as little v. Thanks.
 
  • #6
Yes, that would work. Although it might be even better to say:
V= (x,x), U= (y,y).
 
  • #7
mattmns said:
Thanks matt, I think I am seeing what you are saying. So if I said V is in W, then (v,v) is in W, that would be correct? Because big V is not the same as little v. Thanks.
well, (v,v) is in W because of the definition of W, and is not deduced from V is in W. what you ought to say is if V in W then V=(v,v) for some v. there is no need to actually use V. W is closed under addition because (v,v)+(x,x)=(v+x,v+x).
 
  • #8
Just for future reference, you can cut down the work for the proof for a subspace, simply by showing...

0 e W
cx+y e W, for any scalar c (depending on the field).
 

FAQ: Linear Algebra - Subspaces proof

What is a subspace in linear algebra?

A subspace is a subset of a vector space that is closed under addition and scalar multiplication. This means that when you add two vectors in the subspace, the result is also in the subspace, and when you multiply a vector in the subspace by a scalar, the result is also in the subspace.

How do you prove that a set is a subspace?

To prove that a set is a subspace, you must show that it satisfies the two properties of closure under addition and scalar multiplication. This can be done by showing that the set contains the zero vector, is closed under vector addition, and is closed under scalar multiplication.

What is the difference between a subspace and a vector space?

A vector space is a set of vectors that satisfies specific properties, such as closure under addition and scalar multiplication, associativity, and commutativity. A subspace is a subset of a vector space that also satisfies these properties, but it is not necessarily the entire vector space itself.

Can a subspace contain only one vector?

Yes, a subspace can contain only one vector. This is because a subspace must contain the zero vector, and it is possible for a set to only contain one vector that is also the zero vector.

Why is it important to understand subspaces in linear algebra?

Understanding subspaces is important because they are essential building blocks in linear algebra. They allow us to represent and manipulate systems of equations in a more efficient and organized way, making it easier to solve problems and make predictions in various fields such as physics, engineering, and computer science.

Back
Top