Finite basis of finite dimensional vector spaces
About points...
We associate a certain number of points with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
About difficulty...
We associate a certain difficulty with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
Question
Solution
Short
Video
\(\LaTeX\)
No explanation / solution video to this exercise has yet been created.
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Exercise:
Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over K. Then V has a basis with finitely many elements. Moreover every basis of V is finite and has the same number of elements. Theorem is true even if V is not finite dimensional so called glqq Hamel basis theoremgrqq
Solution:
Proof. For the proof of the Theorem it is helpful to first show some Lemmas which can then be used. bf Lemma E: Let w_..w_lin V and ase that w_jnotin Spw_..w_j- forall leq jleq l. Then the list w_...w_l is linearly indepent. Proof of Lemma E. If w_..w_l were linearly depent then by Lemma A exists leq jleq l s.t. w_jin Spw_...w_j- contradiction lightning bf Lemma F: Suppose that Spv_..v_nV. Then exists a subset of v_...v_n which is a basis for V. Proof of Lemma F. The proof is algorithmic and is based on n steps. At each step we'll consider another vector from the list v_...v_n and decide whether or not to drop it from the list. At step #j we consider v_j. bf step : If v_ we drop v_ from the list. If v_neq we keep it. bf step : If v_jin Spv_...v_j- we drop v_j. Otherwise we keep it. After performing n steps as above we obtain a new possibly shorter list: v_i_v_i_...v_i_m where leq i_ i_ ... i_mleq n. We claim that Spv_i_...v_i_mV. Indeed in any of the steps leq jleq n we dropped the vector v_j only if v_jin Spv_...v_j-. Longrightarrow Spv_i_...v_i_mSpv_..v_nV. We also claim that v_i_...v_i_m are linearly indepent. Indeed forall leq kleq m we have v_i_knotin Spv_v_...v_i_k- Longrightarrow v_i_k notin Spv_i_...v_i_k-. By Lemma E v_i_...v_i_m is linearly indepent. Together with the fact that Spv_i_...v_i_mV we get that v_i_...v_i_m is a basis for V. We can now prove the theorem. Proof. The theorem states three things: itemize item V has a basis with finitely many elements. item Every basis of V has finitely many elements. item Every two bases mathcalA and mathcalB are finite and moreover |mathcalA||mathcalB|. itemize bf First statement: Follows from Lemma F. Take any finite set S s.t. SpSV such an S exists because by assption V is finite dimensional. By Lemma F a subset S' subseteq S is a basis for V. bf Second statement: Every basis mathcalC of V is finite. Suppose by contradiction that mathcalC is a basis of V but mathcalC is not a finite set. Let S be a finite basis of V such S exists by asption say Sv_...v_n. Choose n+ vectors u_...u_n+in mathcalC. They are linearly indepent. By Lemma D n+leq n contradiction lightning This shows that every basis mathcalC of V is finite. bf Third statement: Indeed by the second statement |mathcalA||mathcalB| infty. Now SpBV and mathcalA is linearly indepent so by Lemma D we get that |mathcalA|leq|mathcalB|. But also SpAV and mathcalB is linearly indepent so by Lemma D again we get that |mathcalB|leq|mathcalA|. This shows SpBV and mathcalA is linearly indepent so by Lemma D we get that |mathcalA||mathcalB|.
Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over K. Then V has a basis with finitely many elements. Moreover every basis of V is finite and has the same number of elements. Theorem is true even if V is not finite dimensional so called glqq Hamel basis theoremgrqq
Solution:
Proof. For the proof of the Theorem it is helpful to first show some Lemmas which can then be used. bf Lemma E: Let w_..w_lin V and ase that w_jnotin Spw_..w_j- forall leq jleq l. Then the list w_...w_l is linearly indepent. Proof of Lemma E. If w_..w_l were linearly depent then by Lemma A exists leq jleq l s.t. w_jin Spw_...w_j- contradiction lightning bf Lemma F: Suppose that Spv_..v_nV. Then exists a subset of v_...v_n which is a basis for V. Proof of Lemma F. The proof is algorithmic and is based on n steps. At each step we'll consider another vector from the list v_...v_n and decide whether or not to drop it from the list. At step #j we consider v_j. bf step : If v_ we drop v_ from the list. If v_neq we keep it. bf step : If v_jin Spv_...v_j- we drop v_j. Otherwise we keep it. After performing n steps as above we obtain a new possibly shorter list: v_i_v_i_...v_i_m where leq i_ i_ ... i_mleq n. We claim that Spv_i_...v_i_mV. Indeed in any of the steps leq jleq n we dropped the vector v_j only if v_jin Spv_...v_j-. Longrightarrow Spv_i_...v_i_mSpv_..v_nV. We also claim that v_i_...v_i_m are linearly indepent. Indeed forall leq kleq m we have v_i_knotin Spv_v_...v_i_k- Longrightarrow v_i_k notin Spv_i_...v_i_k-. By Lemma E v_i_...v_i_m is linearly indepent. Together with the fact that Spv_i_...v_i_mV we get that v_i_...v_i_m is a basis for V. We can now prove the theorem. Proof. The theorem states three things: itemize item V has a basis with finitely many elements. item Every basis of V has finitely many elements. item Every two bases mathcalA and mathcalB are finite and moreover |mathcalA||mathcalB|. itemize bf First statement: Follows from Lemma F. Take any finite set S s.t. SpSV such an S exists because by assption V is finite dimensional. By Lemma F a subset S' subseteq S is a basis for V. bf Second statement: Every basis mathcalC of V is finite. Suppose by contradiction that mathcalC is a basis of V but mathcalC is not a finite set. Let S be a finite basis of V such S exists by asption say Sv_...v_n. Choose n+ vectors u_...u_n+in mathcalC. They are linearly indepent. By Lemma D n+leq n contradiction lightning This shows that every basis mathcalC of V is finite. bf Third statement: Indeed by the second statement |mathcalA||mathcalB| infty. Now SpBV and mathcalA is linearly indepent so by Lemma D we get that |mathcalA|leq|mathcalB|. But also SpAV and mathcalB is linearly indepent so by Lemma D again we get that |mathcalB|leq|mathcalA|. This shows SpBV and mathcalA is linearly indepent so by Lemma D we get that |mathcalA||mathcalB|.
Meta Information
Exercise:
Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over K. Then V has a basis with finitely many elements. Moreover every basis of V is finite and has the same number of elements. Theorem is true even if V is not finite dimensional so called glqq Hamel basis theoremgrqq
Solution:
Proof. For the proof of the Theorem it is helpful to first show some Lemmas which can then be used. bf Lemma E: Let w_..w_lin V and ase that w_jnotin Spw_..w_j- forall leq jleq l. Then the list w_...w_l is linearly indepent. Proof of Lemma E. If w_..w_l were linearly depent then by Lemma A exists leq jleq l s.t. w_jin Spw_...w_j- contradiction lightning bf Lemma F: Suppose that Spv_..v_nV. Then exists a subset of v_...v_n which is a basis for V. Proof of Lemma F. The proof is algorithmic and is based on n steps. At each step we'll consider another vector from the list v_...v_n and decide whether or not to drop it from the list. At step #j we consider v_j. bf step : If v_ we drop v_ from the list. If v_neq we keep it. bf step : If v_jin Spv_...v_j- we drop v_j. Otherwise we keep it. After performing n steps as above we obtain a new possibly shorter list: v_i_v_i_...v_i_m where leq i_ i_ ... i_mleq n. We claim that Spv_i_...v_i_mV. Indeed in any of the steps leq jleq n we dropped the vector v_j only if v_jin Spv_...v_j-. Longrightarrow Spv_i_...v_i_mSpv_..v_nV. We also claim that v_i_...v_i_m are linearly indepent. Indeed forall leq kleq m we have v_i_knotin Spv_v_...v_i_k- Longrightarrow v_i_k notin Spv_i_...v_i_k-. By Lemma E v_i_...v_i_m is linearly indepent. Together with the fact that Spv_i_...v_i_mV we get that v_i_...v_i_m is a basis for V. We can now prove the theorem. Proof. The theorem states three things: itemize item V has a basis with finitely many elements. item Every basis of V has finitely many elements. item Every two bases mathcalA and mathcalB are finite and moreover |mathcalA||mathcalB|. itemize bf First statement: Follows from Lemma F. Take any finite set S s.t. SpSV such an S exists because by assption V is finite dimensional. By Lemma F a subset S' subseteq S is a basis for V. bf Second statement: Every basis mathcalC of V is finite. Suppose by contradiction that mathcalC is a basis of V but mathcalC is not a finite set. Let S be a finite basis of V such S exists by asption say Sv_...v_n. Choose n+ vectors u_...u_n+in mathcalC. They are linearly indepent. By Lemma D n+leq n contradiction lightning This shows that every basis mathcalC of V is finite. bf Third statement: Indeed by the second statement |mathcalA||mathcalB| infty. Now SpBV and mathcalA is linearly indepent so by Lemma D we get that |mathcalA|leq|mathcalB|. But also SpAV and mathcalB is linearly indepent so by Lemma D again we get that |mathcalB|leq|mathcalA|. This shows SpBV and mathcalA is linearly indepent so by Lemma D we get that |mathcalA||mathcalB|.
Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over K. Then V has a basis with finitely many elements. Moreover every basis of V is finite and has the same number of elements. Theorem is true even if V is not finite dimensional so called glqq Hamel basis theoremgrqq
Solution:
Proof. For the proof of the Theorem it is helpful to first show some Lemmas which can then be used. bf Lemma E: Let w_..w_lin V and ase that w_jnotin Spw_..w_j- forall leq jleq l. Then the list w_...w_l is linearly indepent. Proof of Lemma E. If w_..w_l were linearly depent then by Lemma A exists leq jleq l s.t. w_jin Spw_...w_j- contradiction lightning bf Lemma F: Suppose that Spv_..v_nV. Then exists a subset of v_...v_n which is a basis for V. Proof of Lemma F. The proof is algorithmic and is based on n steps. At each step we'll consider another vector from the list v_...v_n and decide whether or not to drop it from the list. At step #j we consider v_j. bf step : If v_ we drop v_ from the list. If v_neq we keep it. bf step : If v_jin Spv_...v_j- we drop v_j. Otherwise we keep it. After performing n steps as above we obtain a new possibly shorter list: v_i_v_i_...v_i_m where leq i_ i_ ... i_mleq n. We claim that Spv_i_...v_i_mV. Indeed in any of the steps leq jleq n we dropped the vector v_j only if v_jin Spv_...v_j-. Longrightarrow Spv_i_...v_i_mSpv_..v_nV. We also claim that v_i_...v_i_m are linearly indepent. Indeed forall leq kleq m we have v_i_knotin Spv_v_...v_i_k- Longrightarrow v_i_k notin Spv_i_...v_i_k-. By Lemma E v_i_...v_i_m is linearly indepent. Together with the fact that Spv_i_...v_i_mV we get that v_i_...v_i_m is a basis for V. We can now prove the theorem. Proof. The theorem states three things: itemize item V has a basis with finitely many elements. item Every basis of V has finitely many elements. item Every two bases mathcalA and mathcalB are finite and moreover |mathcalA||mathcalB|. itemize bf First statement: Follows from Lemma F. Take any finite set S s.t. SpSV such an S exists because by assption V is finite dimensional. By Lemma F a subset S' subseteq S is a basis for V. bf Second statement: Every basis mathcalC of V is finite. Suppose by contradiction that mathcalC is a basis of V but mathcalC is not a finite set. Let S be a finite basis of V such S exists by asption say Sv_...v_n. Choose n+ vectors u_...u_n+in mathcalC. They are linearly indepent. By Lemma D n+leq n contradiction lightning This shows that every basis mathcalC of V is finite. bf Third statement: Indeed by the second statement |mathcalA||mathcalB| infty. Now SpBV and mathcalA is linearly indepent so by Lemma D we get that |mathcalA|leq|mathcalB|. But also SpAV and mathcalB is linearly indepent so by Lemma D again we get that |mathcalB|leq|mathcalA|. This shows SpBV and mathcalA is linearly indepent so by Lemma D we get that |mathcalA||mathcalB|.
Contained in these collections: