Results 1 to 12 of 12

Math Help - linear independence and the zero vector

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    From
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    128

    linear independence and the zero vector

    how would i prove that for a vector space V, a subset of V that contains the zero vector is linearly dependent?
    Last edited by squarerootof2; June 27th 2008 at 07:59 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    o_O
    o_O is offline
    Primero Espada
    o_O's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Canada
    Posts
    1,407
    Isn't any vector space containing the zero vector linearly dependent or am I misreading this?

    Consider the nonempty set S = \{\bold{v}_{1}, \bold{v}_{2}, \hdots, \bold{v}_{n}, \bold{0}\}. From here, we can see that: 0\bold{v}_{1} + 0\bold{v}_{2} + \hdots + 0\bold{v}_{n} + 1(\bold{0}) = \bold{0}

    i.e. 0 is a linear combination of the vectors in S whose coefficients aren't all 0.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    From
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    128
    thanks, just noticed after posting.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by o_O View Post
    Isn't any vector space containing the zero vector linearly dependent or am I misreading this?

    Consider the nonempty set S = \{\bold{v}_{1}, \bold{v}_{2}, \hdots, \bold{v}_{n}, \bold{0}\}. From here, we can see that: 0\bold{v}_{1} + 0\bold{v}_{2} + \hdots + 0\bold{v}_{n} + 1(\bold{0}) = \bold{0}

    i.e. 0 is a linear combination of the vectors in S whose coefficients aren't all 0.
    I have a problem with that definition of linear dependence and this is the ideal thread to get some opinions.

    The definition of linear dependent I like to use is that any vector S can be constructed as a linear combination of the others.

    Consider the set S = {0, i, j). Linearly dependent or not? I say not since you can't construct i as a linear combination of 0 and j .....

    (I do understand the argument when the other definition is used that S is dependent ..... I just don't like it ......)
    Last edited by mr fantastic; June 28th 2008 at 05:51 AM. Reason: Miswrote my question. Some time later: Corrected a typo.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    From
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    128
    isn't that the definition of span? linearly independent means that a_1*v_1+...+a_n*v_n=0 for scalars a_i and vectors v_i in the vector spaces foces all the scalars to equal 0. i don't see where the trouble is.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by squarerootof2 View Post
    isn't that the definition of span? linearly independent means that a_1*v_1+...+a_n*v_n=0 for scalars a_i and vectors v_i in the vector spaces foces all the scalars to equal 0. i don't see where the trouble is.
    I miswrote my question. Since edited.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    From
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    128
    from my understanding, ANY vector that contains the zero vector cannot be linearly independent (by earlier argument), thus linearly dependent. isn't that true?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by squarerootof2 View Post
    from my understanding, ANY vector that contains the zero vector cannot be linearly independent (by earlier argument), thus linearly dependent. isn't that true?
    ANY subset of vectors that contains the zero vector cannot be linearly independent.
    That is the correct statement.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    o_O
    o_O is offline
    Primero Espada
    o_O's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Canada
    Posts
    1,407
    Why does it have to be a subset that contains the zero vector? I thought it was any set of vector that contained it was linearly dependent .. well until mr. fantastic's example came up with his definition of linear independence.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    ANY subset of vectors that contains the zero vector cannot be linearly independent.
    That is the correct statement.
    I am familiar with this statement. But if a set S of vectors is linearly dependent then you should be able to express each element of S as a linear combination of the others ..... For S = {0, i, j), how do you express i (or j) as a linear combination of the others?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Lord of certain Rings
    Isomorphism's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    IISc, Bangalore
    Posts
    1,465
    Thanks
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mr fantastic View Post
    But if a set S of vectors is linearly dependent then you should be able to express each element of S as a linear combination of the others .....
    Hmmm..... What about S = \{(1,2),(2,4),(1,1)\}?
    This set is clearly linearly dependent. But I cant express each element of S as a linear combination of the others. For example, (1,1) cannot be expressed as a linear combination of the others, yet S is linearly dependent.

    Considering your knowledge, perhaps you meant:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.F meant
    But if a set S of vectors is linearly dependent then you should be able to express some element of S as a linear combination of the others .....
    Technically this statement is wrong too, unless you define it that way. A set S is defined to be linearly dependent if it is not linearly independent. So technically(formally, logically...) you have to negate the definition of linear independence to get the mathematical formulation for linear dependence. And that formulation is the one you dont like....

    I think this dilemma of implication and equivalence is pretty common. Generally if you have a set of vectors S where one is able to express some element of S as a linear combination of the others, then the set is definitely linearly dependent. However the other way round is not necessarily true. And your question works as wonderful illustration to this fact.

    These are my thoughts and it could be unconvincing. Perhaps some MHF Algebraist can explain it better.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Isomorphism View Post
    Hmmm..... What about S = \{(1,2),(2,4),(1,1)\}?
    This set is clearly linearly dependent. But I cant express each element of S as a linear combination of the others. For example, (1,1) cannot be expressed as a linear combination of the others, yet S is linearly dependent.

    Considering your knowledge, perhaps you meant:


    Technically this statement is wrong too, unless you define it that way. A set S is defined to be linearly dependent if it is not linearly independent. So technically(formally, logically...) you have to negate the definition of linear independence to get the mathematical formulation for linear dependence. And that formulation is the one you dont like....

    I think this dilemma of implication and equivalence is pretty common. Generally if you have a set of vectors S where one is able to express some element of S as a linear combination of the others, then the set is definitely linearly dependent. However the other way round is not necessarily true. And your question works as wonderful illustration to this fact.

    These are my thoughts and it could be unconvincing. Perhaps some MHF Algebraist can explain it better.
    Thanks for this reply. In addition:

    Linear Dependence Theorem: The set { v_1, \, v_2, \, .... v_n} of non-zero vectors is linearly dependent if and only if some x_k, 2 \leq k \leq n, is a linear combination of the preceding ones.

    Theorem: A set of two or more vectors S = { v_1, \, v_2, \, .... v_n} is linearly dependent if and only if one of the v_i is a linear combination of the other vectors in S.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. linear independence of vector functions
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 12th 2011, 10:28 AM
  2. Linear Algebra: Linear Independence question
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 3rd 2011, 05:28 AM
  3. vector spaces, linear independence and functions
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 12th 2011, 08:38 PM
  4. vector independence proof question..
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 4th 2009, 01:06 PM
  5. Linear Transformations and Linear Independence
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 6th 2008, 07:36 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum