Proving span of a Set with Scalar attached to First Element

In summary: The key is to be able to scale and un-scale coordinate values...just like we did in grade school when we learned that multiplication and division are inverse operations.
  • #1
shen07
54
0
hi Guys, i Needed your help to prove out the following, thanks in advance;

Let u1,u2,...,ut be vectors in $\Re^n$ and $k\in\Re ,k\neq0.$ Prove that

$Span\{u_1,u_2,...,u_t\}=Span\{ku_1,u_2,...,u_t\}$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
shen07 said:
hi Guys, i Needed your help to prove out the following, thanks in advance;

Let u1,u2,...,ut be vectors in $\Re^n$ and $k\in\Re ,k\neq0.$ Prove that

$Span\{u_1,u_2,...,u_t\}=Span\{ku_1,u_2,...,u_t\}$

i started working like this, hope you can help me further,

let $S=\{u_1,u_2,...,u_t\}\\\\\,S_k=\{ku_1,u_2,...,u_t\}$
then there exist Vector Spaces $V=L(S)\\\\\&\\\\W=L(S_k)$

Now let $v \in V,\alpha\in\Re$
$v=\alpha_1u_1+\alpha_2u_2+...+\alpha_tu_t$let $w \in W,\gamma\in\Re$
$w=\gamma_1(ku_1)+\gamma_2u_2+...+\gamma_tu_t$Now am i right by saying that since $k\in\Re,k\neq0\Rightarrow\\\alpha_1=\gamma_1k \Rightarrow\\v=w\Rightarrow\\\\L(S)=L(S_k)$
 
  • #3
shen07 said:
hi Guys, i Needed your help to prove out the following, thanks in advance;

Let u1,u2,...,ut be vectors in $\Re^n$ and $k\in\Re ,k\neq0.$ Prove that

$Span\{u_1,u_2,...,u_t\}=Span\{ku_1,u_2,...,u_t\}$

shen07 said:
i started working like this, hope you can help me further,

let $S=\{u_1,u_2,...,u_t\}\\\\\,S_k=\{ku_1,u_2,...,u_t\}$
then there exist Vector Spaces $V=L(S)\\\\\&\\\\W=L(S_k)$

Now let $v \in V,\alpha\in\Re$
$v=\alpha_1u_1+\alpha_2u_2+...+\alpha_tu_t$let $w \in W,\gamma\in\Re$
$w=\gamma_1(ku_1)+\gamma_2u_2+...+\gamma_tu_t$Now am i right by saying that since $k\in\Re,k\neq0\Rightarrow\\\alpha_1=\gamma_1k \Rightarrow\\v=w\Rightarrow\\\\L(S)=L(S_k)$

Hi shen07!

To prove that V and W are the same set, you should prove that any vector in V is also in W, and any vector in W is also in V.

Any vector in V can indeed be written as
$$v=\alpha_1u_1+\alpha_2u_2+...+\alpha_tu_t$$
Now is this vector v also in W?

We can rewrite it as:
$$v=\frac {\alpha_1}{k} (ku_1)+\alpha_2u_2+...+\alpha_tu_t$$
This is a linear combination of the basis of W, so yes, this vector is in W.Note that there is no need to introduce $w$, or $\gamma_i$ at this time.
But if you do, you can't just say that you already know that $\alpha_1=\gamma_1 k$.
What you could do, is say:
Pick $\gamma_1=\frac{\alpha_1}{k}$ and $\gamma_i=\alpha_i$ for $i \in \{2,...,n\}$.
Then $v=w$.Anyway, we're not completely done yet, since we still need to prove that any vector in W is also in V.
Well, any vector in W can be written as:
$$w=\gamma_1 (ku_1)+\gamma_2u_2+...+\gamma_tu_t$$
which is the same as:
$$w=(\gamma_1 k)u_1+\gamma_2u_2+...+\gamma_tu_t$$
Since this vector is a linear combination of the basis of V, it is indeed in V.

This completes the proof.
 
  • #4
ILikeSerena post highlights the most important part of this exercise:

$k \neq 0$.

This is why scalars are called "scalars"...all they do is "scale" one or more coordinates (0 is obviously a special case...it annihilates one or more dimensions!).

As you can see, we can "scale" and "un-scale" to our heart's content. Physicists often do this when they change from one scale of measurement to another, like from grams to kilograms. Map-makers also use this property of scaling to fit things on a page by distorting one axis scale slightly. There really isn't anything mysterious about this (linear independence of axes means we can scale the axes independently, and still preserve linear relationships).

Vector spaces make sense, once you can get past the abstraction of the presentation. We are bringing the ability of arithmetic (which is what fields are all about) to bear on geometry (points, lines, planes, and the like).
 
  • #5


To prove this, we can use the definition of span. The span of a set of vectors is the set of all linear combinations of those vectors. In other words, it is the set of all possible vectors that can be created by multiplying each vector by a scalar and adding them together.

So, for the first set $Span\{u_1,u_2,...,u_t\}$, we can represent any vector in this span as $a_1u_1+a_2u_2+...+a_tu_t$, where $a_1,a_2,...,a_t$ are scalars.

Now, for the second set $Span\{ku_1,u_2,...,u_t\}$, we can represent any vector in this span as $b_1(ku_1)+b_2u_2+...+b_tu_t$, where $b_1,b_2,...,b_t$ are scalars.

But we know that $k$ is a scalar, so we can rewrite the second set as $kb_1u_1+b_2u_2+...+b_tu_t$. This is essentially the same as the first set, just with a different scalar attached to the first vector.

Therefore, we can conclude that $Span\{u_1,u_2,...,u_t\}=Span\{ku_1,u_2,...,u_t\}$, as both sets contain the same set of vectors and can generate the same set of vectors through linear combinations.
 

FAQ: Proving span of a Set with Scalar attached to First Element

What does it mean to prove the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element?

Proving the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element means to show that every element in the set can be expressed as a linear combination of the first element multiplied by a scalar, along with the other elements in the set.

Why is it important to prove the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element?

Proving the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element is important because it allows us to determine if the set is a basis for the vector space. If the span is proven, then the set can be used to represent any vector in that vector space.

What is the process for proving the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element?

The process for proving the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element involves setting up a system of linear equations using the elements of the set and the scalar, and then solving for the coefficients of the linear combination. If a solution is found, then the span is proven.

What are some common mistakes made when proving the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element?

One common mistake is not considering all possible combinations of the elements in the set. It is important to check that every element in the set can be expressed as a linear combination of the first element and the other elements in the set. Another mistake is not setting up the system of equations correctly, which can lead to an incorrect solution.

Can the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element be proven using other methods?

Yes, there are other methods for proving the span of a set with a scalar attached to the first element, such as using the rank-nullity theorem or the definition of linear independence. However, the process of setting up a system of linear equations is the most commonly used method and is often the most straightforward.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top