- #1
Caspian
- 15
- 0
My book made the following claim... but I don't understand why it's true:
If [tex]v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4[/tex] is a basis for the vector space [tex]\mathbb{R}^4[/tex], and if [tex]W[/tex] is a subspace, then there exists a [tex]W[/tex] which has a basis which is not some subset of the [tex]v[/tex]'s.
The book provided a proof by counterexample: Let [tex]v_1 = (1, 0, 0, 0) ... v_2 = (0, 0, 0, 1)[/tex]. If [tex]W[/tex] is the line through [tex](1, 2, 3, 4)[/tex], then none of the [tex]v[/tex]'s are in [tex]W[/tex].
Is it just me, or does this not make any sense? First of all, (1,2,3,4) is a linear combination of (1,0,0,0)...(0,0,0,1), isn't it?
I'm very confused...
Any help would be greatly appreciated :).
If [tex]v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4[/tex] is a basis for the vector space [tex]\mathbb{R}^4[/tex], and if [tex]W[/tex] is a subspace, then there exists a [tex]W[/tex] which has a basis which is not some subset of the [tex]v[/tex]'s.
The book provided a proof by counterexample: Let [tex]v_1 = (1, 0, 0, 0) ... v_2 = (0, 0, 0, 1)[/tex]. If [tex]W[/tex] is the line through [tex](1, 2, 3, 4)[/tex], then none of the [tex]v[/tex]'s are in [tex]W[/tex].
Is it just me, or does this not make any sense? First of all, (1,2,3,4) is a linear combination of (1,0,0,0)...(0,0,0,1), isn't it?
I'm very confused...
Any help would be greatly appreciated :).