W1 + W3 = W2 + W3. Then W1 = W2











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Claim. Let $V$ be a vector space over $F$, and suppose that $W_1, W_2,$ and $W_3$ are subspaces
of $V$ such that $W_1 + W_3 = W_2 + W_3.$ Then $W_1 = W_2.$



Proof



$W_1 + W_3 - W_3 = W_2 + W_3 - W_3$



$therefore$ $W_1 = W_2$



My proof feels like cheating, is it even valid? Also is there anyway to 'say', prove or demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way i.e. set builder notation?



In regards to the rules of the site is my question to simple, if so what can I do to make it better?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Subtraction between subspaces of a vector space is not defined.
    – Batominovski
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Your claim is clearly false: ${0}+V=V+V$, for every vector space $V$. If your claim is true, it implies that every vector space just consists of the zero vector. Your attempt at a proof is essentially the same as concluding that $1=2$ from the fact that $1cdot0=2cdot0$ and multiplying both sides by $0^{-1}$.
    – egreg
    2 days ago

















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Claim. Let $V$ be a vector space over $F$, and suppose that $W_1, W_2,$ and $W_3$ are subspaces
of $V$ such that $W_1 + W_3 = W_2 + W_3.$ Then $W_1 = W_2.$



Proof



$W_1 + W_3 - W_3 = W_2 + W_3 - W_3$



$therefore$ $W_1 = W_2$



My proof feels like cheating, is it even valid? Also is there anyway to 'say', prove or demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way i.e. set builder notation?



In regards to the rules of the site is my question to simple, if so what can I do to make it better?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Subtraction between subspaces of a vector space is not defined.
    – Batominovski
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Your claim is clearly false: ${0}+V=V+V$, for every vector space $V$. If your claim is true, it implies that every vector space just consists of the zero vector. Your attempt at a proof is essentially the same as concluding that $1=2$ from the fact that $1cdot0=2cdot0$ and multiplying both sides by $0^{-1}$.
    – egreg
    2 days ago















up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Claim. Let $V$ be a vector space over $F$, and suppose that $W_1, W_2,$ and $W_3$ are subspaces
of $V$ such that $W_1 + W_3 = W_2 + W_3.$ Then $W_1 = W_2.$



Proof



$W_1 + W_3 - W_3 = W_2 + W_3 - W_3$



$therefore$ $W_1 = W_2$



My proof feels like cheating, is it even valid? Also is there anyway to 'say', prove or demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way i.e. set builder notation?



In regards to the rules of the site is my question to simple, if so what can I do to make it better?










share|cite|improve this question













Claim. Let $V$ be a vector space over $F$, and suppose that $W_1, W_2,$ and $W_3$ are subspaces
of $V$ such that $W_1 + W_3 = W_2 + W_3.$ Then $W_1 = W_2.$



Proof



$W_1 + W_3 - W_3 = W_2 + W_3 - W_3$



$therefore$ $W_1 = W_2$



My proof feels like cheating, is it even valid? Also is there anyway to 'say', prove or demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way i.e. set builder notation?



In regards to the rules of the site is my question to simple, if so what can I do to make it better?







proof-verification elementary-set-theory vector-spaces alternative-proof






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









oypus

498




498












  • Subtraction between subspaces of a vector space is not defined.
    – Batominovski
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Your claim is clearly false: ${0}+V=V+V$, for every vector space $V$. If your claim is true, it implies that every vector space just consists of the zero vector. Your attempt at a proof is essentially the same as concluding that $1=2$ from the fact that $1cdot0=2cdot0$ and multiplying both sides by $0^{-1}$.
    – egreg
    2 days ago




















  • Subtraction between subspaces of a vector space is not defined.
    – Batominovski
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Your claim is clearly false: ${0}+V=V+V$, for every vector space $V$. If your claim is true, it implies that every vector space just consists of the zero vector. Your attempt at a proof is essentially the same as concluding that $1=2$ from the fact that $1cdot0=2cdot0$ and multiplying both sides by $0^{-1}$.
    – egreg
    2 days ago


















Subtraction between subspaces of a vector space is not defined.
– Batominovski
2 days ago




Subtraction between subspaces of a vector space is not defined.
– Batominovski
2 days ago




2




2




Your claim is clearly false: ${0}+V=V+V$, for every vector space $V$. If your claim is true, it implies that every vector space just consists of the zero vector. Your attempt at a proof is essentially the same as concluding that $1=2$ from the fact that $1cdot0=2cdot0$ and multiplying both sides by $0^{-1}$.
– egreg
2 days ago






Your claim is clearly false: ${0}+V=V+V$, for every vector space $V$. If your claim is true, it implies that every vector space just consists of the zero vector. Your attempt at a proof is essentially the same as concluding that $1=2$ from the fact that $1cdot0=2cdot0$ and multiplying both sides by $0^{-1}$.
– egreg
2 days ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Consider $V=mathbb{R}^2 $ and $W_3= {(x,0) : xin mathbb{R}}$, $W_1= {(0,y) : yin mathbb{R}}$ and $W_2= {(t,t) : tin mathbb{R}}$



You should be able to verify that $W_1+W_3 = W_2 + W_3$



What does that tell you about your claim?






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Does it say that the claim is false?
    – oypus
    2 days ago


















up vote
3
down vote













What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?



You can't subtract subspaces.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you, but that only answers one component of my question, may you elaborate on you answer.
    – oypus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @oypus This answer answers your question completely.
    – Thomas
    2 days ago






  • 3




    SInce your claim is false, there is no way to "demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way".Your notation is fine. Better notation would not make the claim true.
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 days ago


















up vote
3
down vote













There is a very simple counterexample. Since the statement is about arbitrary subspaces $W_1$, $W_2$ and $W_3$ only subject to the condition that $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$, it should in particular hold for $W_1={0}$, $W_2=W_3=V$. Then from
$$
{0}+V=V+V
$$

(which is true), you'd conclude that
$$
{0}=V
$$

Now any non trivial vector space is a counterexample.



From a slightly higher point of view, the set $mathscr{L}(V)$ of subspaces of $V$ is a commutative monoid under the $+$ operation, because it is associative and has the neutral element ${0}$, because ${0}+W=W$, for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$.



However, this monoid cannot be cancellative (that is $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$ implies $W_1=W_2$) for several reasons, the most important one being that it has an absorbing element, namely $V$:
$$
W+V=V
$$

for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$. An absorbing element cannot have a symmetric element, unless the monoid is trivial.



Also, if $U$ is a subspace of $V$ and $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)$ denotes the set of subspaces of $V$ contained in $U$, we have $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)=mathscr{L}(U)$, which is thus a submonoid of $mathscr{L}(V)$. Since every $Uinmathscr{L}(V)$ is the absorbing element in a submonoid, no element can have a symmetric element, except for ${0}$.



Note. By “symmetric element” of an element $x$ in a monoid $(M,*,e)$ I mean an element $y$ such that $x*y=y*x=e$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially what you are saying is that since addition isn't always 'symmetric' i.e. W+V=V we cannot use inverse operations like subtraction without a prior knowledge of the sets we are dealing with, because inverse operations imply or assume symmetry.
    – oypus
    2 days ago












  • Is "symmetric element" the same as "inverse element", or is there more to what you're saying?
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago










  • @HenningMakholm Yes, I used “symmetric” to be agnostic about the operation being denoted additively or multiplicatively. I added a note.
    – egreg
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @egreg: Okay. (However, in my experience "inverse" too is used for both additively and multiplicatively notated monoids).
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012841%2fw1-w3-w2-w3-then-w1-w2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Consider $V=mathbb{R}^2 $ and $W_3= {(x,0) : xin mathbb{R}}$, $W_1= {(0,y) : yin mathbb{R}}$ and $W_2= {(t,t) : tin mathbb{R}}$



You should be able to verify that $W_1+W_3 = W_2 + W_3$



What does that tell you about your claim?






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Does it say that the claim is false?
    – oypus
    2 days ago















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Consider $V=mathbb{R}^2 $ and $W_3= {(x,0) : xin mathbb{R}}$, $W_1= {(0,y) : yin mathbb{R}}$ and $W_2= {(t,t) : tin mathbb{R}}$



You should be able to verify that $W_1+W_3 = W_2 + W_3$



What does that tell you about your claim?






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Does it say that the claim is false?
    – oypus
    2 days ago













up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






Consider $V=mathbb{R}^2 $ and $W_3= {(x,0) : xin mathbb{R}}$, $W_1= {(0,y) : yin mathbb{R}}$ and $W_2= {(t,t) : tin mathbb{R}}$



You should be able to verify that $W_1+W_3 = W_2 + W_3$



What does that tell you about your claim?






share|cite|improve this answer














Consider $V=mathbb{R}^2 $ and $W_3= {(x,0) : xin mathbb{R}}$, $W_1= {(0,y) : yin mathbb{R}}$ and $W_2= {(t,t) : tin mathbb{R}}$



You should be able to verify that $W_1+W_3 = W_2 + W_3$



What does that tell you about your claim?







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









Thomas

16.6k21530




16.6k21530












  • Does it say that the claim is false?
    – oypus
    2 days ago


















  • Does it say that the claim is false?
    – oypus
    2 days ago
















Does it say that the claim is false?
– oypus
2 days ago




Does it say that the claim is false?
– oypus
2 days ago










up vote
3
down vote













What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?



You can't subtract subspaces.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you, but that only answers one component of my question, may you elaborate on you answer.
    – oypus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @oypus This answer answers your question completely.
    – Thomas
    2 days ago






  • 3




    SInce your claim is false, there is no way to "demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way".Your notation is fine. Better notation would not make the claim true.
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 days ago















up vote
3
down vote













What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?



You can't subtract subspaces.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you, but that only answers one component of my question, may you elaborate on you answer.
    – oypus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @oypus This answer answers your question completely.
    – Thomas
    2 days ago






  • 3




    SInce your claim is false, there is no way to "demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way".Your notation is fine. Better notation would not make the claim true.
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 days ago













up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?



You can't subtract subspaces.






share|cite|improve this answer












What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?



You can't subtract subspaces.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









Ethan Bolker

39.5k543102




39.5k543102












  • Thank you, but that only answers one component of my question, may you elaborate on you answer.
    – oypus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @oypus This answer answers your question completely.
    – Thomas
    2 days ago






  • 3




    SInce your claim is false, there is no way to "demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way".Your notation is fine. Better notation would not make the claim true.
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 days ago


















  • Thank you, but that only answers one component of my question, may you elaborate on you answer.
    – oypus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @oypus This answer answers your question completely.
    – Thomas
    2 days ago






  • 3




    SInce your claim is false, there is no way to "demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way".Your notation is fine. Better notation would not make the claim true.
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 days ago
















Thank you, but that only answers one component of my question, may you elaborate on you answer.
– oypus
2 days ago




Thank you, but that only answers one component of my question, may you elaborate on you answer.
– oypus
2 days ago




1




1




@oypus This answer answers your question completely.
– Thomas
2 days ago




@oypus This answer answers your question completely.
– Thomas
2 days ago




3




3




SInce your claim is false, there is no way to "demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way".Your notation is fine. Better notation would not make the claim true.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago




SInce your claim is false, there is no way to "demonstrate the same thing in a more rigorous way".Your notation is fine. Better notation would not make the claim true.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago










up vote
3
down vote













There is a very simple counterexample. Since the statement is about arbitrary subspaces $W_1$, $W_2$ and $W_3$ only subject to the condition that $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$, it should in particular hold for $W_1={0}$, $W_2=W_3=V$. Then from
$$
{0}+V=V+V
$$

(which is true), you'd conclude that
$$
{0}=V
$$

Now any non trivial vector space is a counterexample.



From a slightly higher point of view, the set $mathscr{L}(V)$ of subspaces of $V$ is a commutative monoid under the $+$ operation, because it is associative and has the neutral element ${0}$, because ${0}+W=W$, for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$.



However, this monoid cannot be cancellative (that is $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$ implies $W_1=W_2$) for several reasons, the most important one being that it has an absorbing element, namely $V$:
$$
W+V=V
$$

for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$. An absorbing element cannot have a symmetric element, unless the monoid is trivial.



Also, if $U$ is a subspace of $V$ and $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)$ denotes the set of subspaces of $V$ contained in $U$, we have $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)=mathscr{L}(U)$, which is thus a submonoid of $mathscr{L}(V)$. Since every $Uinmathscr{L}(V)$ is the absorbing element in a submonoid, no element can have a symmetric element, except for ${0}$.



Note. By “symmetric element” of an element $x$ in a monoid $(M,*,e)$ I mean an element $y$ such that $x*y=y*x=e$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially what you are saying is that since addition isn't always 'symmetric' i.e. W+V=V we cannot use inverse operations like subtraction without a prior knowledge of the sets we are dealing with, because inverse operations imply or assume symmetry.
    – oypus
    2 days ago












  • Is "symmetric element" the same as "inverse element", or is there more to what you're saying?
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago










  • @HenningMakholm Yes, I used “symmetric” to be agnostic about the operation being denoted additively or multiplicatively. I added a note.
    – egreg
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @egreg: Okay. (However, in my experience "inverse" too is used for both additively and multiplicatively notated monoids).
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago















up vote
3
down vote













There is a very simple counterexample. Since the statement is about arbitrary subspaces $W_1$, $W_2$ and $W_3$ only subject to the condition that $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$, it should in particular hold for $W_1={0}$, $W_2=W_3=V$. Then from
$$
{0}+V=V+V
$$

(which is true), you'd conclude that
$$
{0}=V
$$

Now any non trivial vector space is a counterexample.



From a slightly higher point of view, the set $mathscr{L}(V)$ of subspaces of $V$ is a commutative monoid under the $+$ operation, because it is associative and has the neutral element ${0}$, because ${0}+W=W$, for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$.



However, this monoid cannot be cancellative (that is $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$ implies $W_1=W_2$) for several reasons, the most important one being that it has an absorbing element, namely $V$:
$$
W+V=V
$$

for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$. An absorbing element cannot have a symmetric element, unless the monoid is trivial.



Also, if $U$ is a subspace of $V$ and $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)$ denotes the set of subspaces of $V$ contained in $U$, we have $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)=mathscr{L}(U)$, which is thus a submonoid of $mathscr{L}(V)$. Since every $Uinmathscr{L}(V)$ is the absorbing element in a submonoid, no element can have a symmetric element, except for ${0}$.



Note. By “symmetric element” of an element $x$ in a monoid $(M,*,e)$ I mean an element $y$ such that $x*y=y*x=e$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially what you are saying is that since addition isn't always 'symmetric' i.e. W+V=V we cannot use inverse operations like subtraction without a prior knowledge of the sets we are dealing with, because inverse operations imply or assume symmetry.
    – oypus
    2 days ago












  • Is "symmetric element" the same as "inverse element", or is there more to what you're saying?
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago










  • @HenningMakholm Yes, I used “symmetric” to be agnostic about the operation being denoted additively or multiplicatively. I added a note.
    – egreg
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @egreg: Okay. (However, in my experience "inverse" too is used for both additively and multiplicatively notated monoids).
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago













up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









There is a very simple counterexample. Since the statement is about arbitrary subspaces $W_1$, $W_2$ and $W_3$ only subject to the condition that $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$, it should in particular hold for $W_1={0}$, $W_2=W_3=V$. Then from
$$
{0}+V=V+V
$$

(which is true), you'd conclude that
$$
{0}=V
$$

Now any non trivial vector space is a counterexample.



From a slightly higher point of view, the set $mathscr{L}(V)$ of subspaces of $V$ is a commutative monoid under the $+$ operation, because it is associative and has the neutral element ${0}$, because ${0}+W=W$, for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$.



However, this monoid cannot be cancellative (that is $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$ implies $W_1=W_2$) for several reasons, the most important one being that it has an absorbing element, namely $V$:
$$
W+V=V
$$

for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$. An absorbing element cannot have a symmetric element, unless the monoid is trivial.



Also, if $U$ is a subspace of $V$ and $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)$ denotes the set of subspaces of $V$ contained in $U$, we have $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)=mathscr{L}(U)$, which is thus a submonoid of $mathscr{L}(V)$. Since every $Uinmathscr{L}(V)$ is the absorbing element in a submonoid, no element can have a symmetric element, except for ${0}$.



Note. By “symmetric element” of an element $x$ in a monoid $(M,*,e)$ I mean an element $y$ such that $x*y=y*x=e$.






share|cite|improve this answer














There is a very simple counterexample. Since the statement is about arbitrary subspaces $W_1$, $W_2$ and $W_3$ only subject to the condition that $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$, it should in particular hold for $W_1={0}$, $W_2=W_3=V$. Then from
$$
{0}+V=V+V
$$

(which is true), you'd conclude that
$$
{0}=V
$$

Now any non trivial vector space is a counterexample.



From a slightly higher point of view, the set $mathscr{L}(V)$ of subspaces of $V$ is a commutative monoid under the $+$ operation, because it is associative and has the neutral element ${0}$, because ${0}+W=W$, for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$.



However, this monoid cannot be cancellative (that is $W_1+W_3=W_2+W_3$ implies $W_1=W_2$) for several reasons, the most important one being that it has an absorbing element, namely $V$:
$$
W+V=V
$$

for every $Winmathscr{L}(V)$. An absorbing element cannot have a symmetric element, unless the monoid is trivial.



Also, if $U$ is a subspace of $V$ and $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)$ denotes the set of subspaces of $V$ contained in $U$, we have $mathscr{L}(V;subseteq U)=mathscr{L}(U)$, which is thus a submonoid of $mathscr{L}(V)$. Since every $Uinmathscr{L}(V)$ is the absorbing element in a submonoid, no element can have a symmetric element, except for ${0}$.



Note. By “symmetric element” of an element $x$ in a monoid $(M,*,e)$ I mean an element $y$ such that $x*y=y*x=e$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









egreg

174k1383198




174k1383198












  • Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially what you are saying is that since addition isn't always 'symmetric' i.e. W+V=V we cannot use inverse operations like subtraction without a prior knowledge of the sets we are dealing with, because inverse operations imply or assume symmetry.
    – oypus
    2 days ago












  • Is "symmetric element" the same as "inverse element", or is there more to what you're saying?
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago










  • @HenningMakholm Yes, I used “symmetric” to be agnostic about the operation being denoted additively or multiplicatively. I added a note.
    – egreg
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @egreg: Okay. (However, in my experience "inverse" too is used for both additively and multiplicatively notated monoids).
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago


















  • Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially what you are saying is that since addition isn't always 'symmetric' i.e. W+V=V we cannot use inverse operations like subtraction without a prior knowledge of the sets we are dealing with, because inverse operations imply or assume symmetry.
    – oypus
    2 days ago












  • Is "symmetric element" the same as "inverse element", or is there more to what you're saying?
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago










  • @HenningMakholm Yes, I used “symmetric” to be agnostic about the operation being denoted additively or multiplicatively. I added a note.
    – egreg
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @egreg: Okay. (However, in my experience "inverse" too is used for both additively and multiplicatively notated monoids).
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago
















Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially what you are saying is that since addition isn't always 'symmetric' i.e. W+V=V we cannot use inverse operations like subtraction without a prior knowledge of the sets we are dealing with, because inverse operations imply or assume symmetry.
– oypus
2 days ago






Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially what you are saying is that since addition isn't always 'symmetric' i.e. W+V=V we cannot use inverse operations like subtraction without a prior knowledge of the sets we are dealing with, because inverse operations imply or assume symmetry.
– oypus
2 days ago














Is "symmetric element" the same as "inverse element", or is there more to what you're saying?
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago




Is "symmetric element" the same as "inverse element", or is there more to what you're saying?
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago












@HenningMakholm Yes, I used “symmetric” to be agnostic about the operation being denoted additively or multiplicatively. I added a note.
– egreg
2 days ago






@HenningMakholm Yes, I used “symmetric” to be agnostic about the operation being denoted additively or multiplicatively. I added a note.
– egreg
2 days ago






1




1




@egreg: Okay. (However, in my experience "inverse" too is used for both additively and multiplicatively notated monoids).
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago




@egreg: Okay. (However, in my experience "inverse" too is used for both additively and multiplicatively notated monoids).
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012841%2fw1-w3-w2-w3-then-w1-w2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

Alcedinidae

Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]