Skip to content
Hub Nexus

No author yetClaim it

Version 1Updated 3 min read

Support

Linear combinations involving only fractions or only integers are much
easier for computations than combinations involving real numbers,
because computing with irrational numbers is awkward.
Could other number systems, like the rationals or the integers, work in the
place of ℝ in the definition of a vector space?

Yes and no.
If we take "work" to mean that the results of this chapter
remain true
then an analysis of which properties of the reals we have
used in this chapter gives the following list of conditions an algebraic system
needs in order to "work" in the place of ℝ.

Definition 1.1

A field is a set ℱ with two operations"+" and "⋅" such that

  • for any a , b ∈ ℱ the result of a + b is in ℱ and

a + b = b + a

  • if c ∈ ℱ then a + ( b + c ) = ( a + b ) + c
  • for any a , b ∈ ℱ the result of a ⋅ b is in ℱ and

a ⋅ b = b ⋅ a

  • if c ∈ ℱ then a ⋅ ( b ⋅ c ) = ( a ⋅ b ) ⋅ c
  • if a , b , c ∈ ℱ then a ⋅ ( b + c ) = a ⋅ b + a ⋅ c
  • there is an element {}0 ∈ ℱ such that

if a ∈ ℱ then a + 0 = a

  • for each a ∈ ℱ there is an element − a ∈ ℱ
    such that ( − a ) + a = 0
  • there is an element {}1 ∈ ℱ such that

if a ∈ ℱ then a ⋅ 1 = a

  • for each element a ≠ 0 of ℱ
    there is an element {a}^{− 1} ∈ ℱ
    such that {a}^{− 1} ⋅ a = 1.

The number system consisting of the set of real numbers along with the usual
addition and multiplication operation is a field, naturally.
Another field is the set of rational numbers with its usual addition
and multiplication operations.
An example of an algebraic structure that is not a field is
the integer number system — it fails the final condition.

Some examples are surprising.
The set \{ 0 , 1 \} under these operations:

\begin{matrix}+ & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 0\end{matrix} \ \begin{matrix}⋅ & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 1\end{matrix}

is a field (see Problem 4).

We could develop Linear Algebra as the theory of
vector spaces with scalars from an arbitrary field,
instead of sticking to taking the scalars only from ℝ.
In that case,
almost all of the statements in this book would carry over by replacing
"ℝ" with "ℱ", and thus by
taking coefficients, vector entries,
and matrix entries to be elements of ℱ
("almost" because statements involving distances or angles
are exceptions).
Here are some examples; each applies to a vector space V
over a field ℱ.

  • For any \overset{→}{v} ∈ V and a ∈ ℱ,

{}0 ⋅ \overset{→}{v} = \overset{→}{0}, and

  • − 1 ⋅ \overset{→}{v} + \overset{→}{v} = \overset{→}{0}, and
  • a ⋅ \overset{→}{0} = \overset{→}{0}.
  • The span (the set of linear combinations) of a subset of V

is a subspace of V.

  • Any subset of a linearly independent set is also
    linearly independent.
  • In a finite-dimensional vector space,

any two bases have the same number of elements.

(Even statements that don't explicitly mention ℱ use
field properties in their proof.)

We won't develop vector spaces in this more general setting because
the additional abstraction can be a distraction.
The ideas we want to bring out already appear when we stick to the reals.

The only exception is in Chapter Five.
In that chapter we must factor polynomials,
so we will switch to considering vector spaces over the
field of complex numbers.
We will discuss this more, including a brief review of complex arithmetic,
when we get there.

Exercises

Problem 1

Show that the real numbers form a field.

Problem 2

Prove that these are fields.

  • The rational numbers ℚ
  • The complex numbers ℂ

Problem 3

Give an example that shows that the integer number system is not a field.

Problem 4

Consider the set \{ 0 , 1 \} subject to the operations given above. Show that it is a field.

Problem 5

Give suitable operations to make the set \{ 0 , 1 , 2 \} a field.

Solutions

Where this page came from

This page was imported from Wikibooks. From “Linear Algebra” on Wikibooks, by its contributors, under CC BY-SA 4.0. Changed here: set as a page; navigation and edit links left out; each image under its own licence, credited in its caption.

Nobody has written it yet — it is the source material at a new address, which is why search engines are asked to skip it and why no one earns from it. It is up for grabs: take it on, and it is yours to rewrite and to earn from.

Comments

Spinner Logo

Next in Linear Algebra

CC BY-SA 4.0
Everyone has noticed that table salt comes in little cubes. Remarkably, the explanation for the cubical external shape is the simplest one possible: the internal shape, the way the atoms lie, is also cubical. The internal structure is pictured below. Salt is sodium chloride, and the small spheres sh
CC BY-SA 4.0
Imagine that a Political Science class studying the American presidential process holds a mock election. Members of the class are asked to rank, from most preferred to least preferred, the nominees from the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the Third Party, and this is the result ($>$ mean
CC BY-SA 4.0
"You can't add apples and oranges," the old saying goes. It reflects our experience that in applications the quantities have units and keeping track of those units is worthwhile. Everyone has done calculations such as this one that use the units as a check. ${}60 \ \frac{\text{sec}}{\text{min}} ⋅ 60
CC BY-SA 4.0
In the examples following the definition of a vector space we developed the intuition that some spaces are "the same" as others. For instance, the space of two-tall column vectors and the space of two-wide row vectors are not equal because their elements—column vectors and row vectors—are not equal,
CC BY-SA 4.0
We start with two examples that suggest the right definition. Example 1.1 Consider the example mentioned above, the space of two-wide row vectors and the space of two-tall column vectors. They are "the same" in that if we associate the vectors that have the same components, e.g., $( \begin{matrix}1
CC BY-SA 4.0
In the prior subsection, after stating the definition of an isomorphism, we gave some results supporting the intuition that such a map describes spaces as "the same". Here we will formalize this intuition. While two spaces that are isomorphic are not equal, we think of them as almost equal— as equiv