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?
proof-verification elementary-set-theory vector-spaces alternative-proof
add a comment |
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?
proof-verification elementary-set-theory vector-spaces alternative-proof
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
add a comment |
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?
proof-verification elementary-set-theory vector-spaces alternative-proof
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
proof-verification elementary-set-theory vector-spaces alternative-proof
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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?
Does it say that the claim is false?
– oypus
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?
You can't subtract subspaces.
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
add a comment |
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 $x*y=y*x=e$.
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
add a comment |
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?
Does it say that the claim is false?
– oypus
2 days ago
add a comment |
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?
Does it say that the claim is false?
– oypus
2 days ago
add a comment |
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?
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?
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?
You can't subtract subspaces.
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
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?
You can't subtract subspaces.
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
add a comment |
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.
What does your claim say if $W_3$ is the whole space $V$?
You can't subtract subspaces.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $x*y=y*x=e$.
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
add a comment |
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 $x*y=y*x=e$.
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
add a comment |
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 $x*y=y*x=e$.
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 $x*y=y*x=e$.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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