Vector Spaces
6.1 Definitions and examples of Vector Spaces
To define a vector space, we need a mathematical system which consists of the following four things:
-
A set of elements called "vectors".
-
A "vector-addition" rule that combines a pair of vectors from . This is usually just represented by a For vectors you combine them by doing
-
A field of scalars, denoted by , where could denote the rational numbers or the real numbers or the complex numbers . There are other less common examples too.

-
A "multiplication by a scalar" rule for combining a vector from and a scalar from to form a vector. This is probably the most confusing one.
Basically, from the previous 3 rules, you can discern that a vector can have many possible forms (i.e. made up of only 1s and 0s, or of 2 dimensional matrices etc.), hence, a proper way of determining what happens when scalars multiply such vectors must be formed. There cannot be a default way for every vector as its contents may or may not be different per vector type.
If is a scalar and is an element of , then means the result of multiplying by the scalar .
You can internalise this using these examples:
- Standard Rule: If is a 2D coordinate space and is the real numbers, the rule is .
- Matrix Rule: if is a set of matrices, multiplying by a scalar means applying it to all four entries inside the matrix grid.
- Function rule: If is a set of functions, then multiplying a function by a scalar creates a brand new function , defined by the rule .
The system is then denoted by . Often times we can omit the if its representation remains obvious.
We can now give a formal definition of a vector space.
Note:
1. Each of the basic rules is called an axiom
2. The vector in axiom 5 and the vector formed by multiplying with the scalar -1 are not the same by definition.
3. Formally, axiom 7 says .
4. In axiom 9, the addition on the left is the addition of two scalars while the addition on the right is the addition of two vectors. They are different additions.
5. Two vector spaces are only the same when all the four things are the same . However, different vector spaces with the same set of vectors are rarely discussed, unlike different sets of vectors with the same set of scalars and the same operations.
6. When there is no confusion, we shall simply call , the vector space .
It is very difficult from the definition alone to acquire a good intuitive understanding - a "gut feeling" - for what is meant by a vector space. You need to supplement the definition by a good “rough idea” of what a vector space is. A good rough idea could be:
A vector space is “something where we know how to add objects and multiply objects by numbers, and where the addition and multiplication satisfy ‘sensible’ laws”
Examples of sets which are vector spaces
Example 1 (The Vector Space ). This represents the set of all vectors of all reals in any dimension.
The set of scalars is simply .
Vector addition is then defined by
To prove that it is a vector space, it is necessary to show that all ten axioms listed in the definition are satisfied by the system.
All the axioms are general statements about arbitrary vectors and scalars. We have to prove the axioms are satisfied by any:
Lot's of working out to prove all 10 axioms
After we have checked that all ten axioms are satisfied, we can conclude that the system is a vector space, or simply is a vector space over .
Example 2 (The Vector Space ). The set of vectors similar to example 1 but in the field of the complex numbers.
To prove that this is a vector space it is necessary to show that the ten vector space axioms are satisfied. This proof is formally identical to that for over since only basic operations are involved.
Example 3 (The Vector Space of Real Matrices). This represents a vector made up of matrices of dimensions where every number inside these matrices must be a real number (the scalar field in this case). There is a natural and straightforward generalisation to , where the entries come from the field .
Note
Caption

Lowk insane notation i couldnt be asked to latex
Example 4 (The Vector Space of Polynomials). This is simply the vector space representing every possible polynomial: etc. However it is worth noting that the set of all real-valued functions on can form a vector space, as does the set of all continuous functions (so stuff like or ). To represent the set of all real polynomials, you write .
A vector is the polynomial given by .
It is important to note that is not in considered a vector whilst is. In other words, is a real-valued function whilst is the value of the function at .
One more thing to note is that has infinite dimensions since a polynomial can always have a higher leading coefficient since it is in the field of real numbers. You can generalise the field by simply denoting them as over a field . I think any field with addition and multiplication by a scalar similarly defined is also a vector space.
For any non-negative integers , the subset of all polynomial degrees n or less including the zero polynomial is again a vector space.
Examples of sets which are NOT vector spaces
Example 1 (, the set of vectors with integer components)
This is simply represented by , and there are 2 axioms that this set breaks.
Since we have not specified the field of these vectors, the default field for scalar's is usually the real numbers . Looking at Axiom 6, any vector multiplied by any scalar in the field must result in a vector that stays within the original set. However, suppose
then, , since this vector consists of at least one non-integer member, it cannot be in the original set, and thus the space is not closed.
Limiting the scalars to only consist of integers fixes our previous problem, however it breaks the very definition of . Since the integers don't have a multiplicative inverse (i.e. there does not exist a number in the integers such that ), you cannot choose a field to be integers only.
A vector space is fundamentally designed for continuous scaling; you need to be able to stretch or shrink a vector by any microscopic fraction. Because integers are rigid, whole steps, they can't handle being shrunk by fractions, which ruins the geometry required to be a true vector space.
Example 2 (The set of all matrices)
This set is obvious; suppose you have a matrice and another matrice , attempting to add them is undefined, breaking the first axiom.
This seems like a 180, however, looking closely, the set consists of polynomials only of degree 3. Unlike the definition of which allows any polynomial with degree , the degree must be precisely in this case. This violates Axiom 1 as:
Since both and are within the set, performing an addition between the two results in a polynomial outside of the set, hence not being closed. We can generalise this to be true for any .

Answering these,
6.2 Vector Arithmetic
The axioms give a minimal set of rules needed to define a vector space. The first five vector space axioms apply to vector addition, and they are in fact identical to the five basic axioms of addition for integers, real numbers and complex numbers. This means that all the arithmetic properties of vector addition are identical to corresponding properties of addition of numbers.
Proposition 1. In any vector space , the following properties hold for addition.
- Uniqueness of Zero. There is one and only one zero vector.
- Cancellation Property. If satisfy , then .
- Uniqueness of Negatives. For all , there exists only one such that
Proof

Prove (3): Each vector in a vector space only has one negative.
Let and . By the axioms of a vector space, we can evaluate as follows:
Prove (4): The zero vector is its own negative i.e.
By the existence of the zero vector, we know that adding to itself yields:
By the definition of an additive inverse, the negative of the zero vector, , must satisfy:
Since both expressions equal , we can equate them:
Because the additive inverse is unique, it must follow that:
Proposition 2. Suppose that is a vector space over a field , , is the zero scalar in and is the zero vector in . Then the following properties hold for multiplication by a scalar:
- Multiplication by the zero scalar. ,
- Multiplication of the zero vector.
- Multiplication by . (the additive inverse of ).
- Zero Products. If , then either or .
- Cancellation Property. If and then .
6.3 Subspaces
Many problems about vectors involve subsets of some vector space, such as the points on a line in forming a subset of , or the points on a plane in form a subset of .
The question that arises is if a subset of the real-number line is a vector space; for now we will focus on ways to show that a given set is not a vector space.
Example. Suppose you have , is this a vector space?
Geometrically, the set S represents a line segment.
The given system is not a vector space, since it is not closed under scalar multiplication. A counterexample; , but 5 + 5 = 10 is not an element of S.
Example. The plane is a vector space. Show that the subset of given by
is not a vector space.
There are several ways to solve this problem since there are several axioms which are not satisfied. One method is to note that , whereas . Hence the set is not closed under scalar multiplication and so is not a vector space.

Geometric view of S
Example. Let . Is a vector space?
Suppose , then as , but is not in as , therefore is not a vector space.
- A common theme here is in showing that a set does not need to contain some region (i.e. negatives), you should always give a specific numerical example. You should do the same when showing that a set is not closed under addition, or not closed under scalar multiplication.
However, you can (sometimes) use these methods to show that something is not a vector space, but you can never use them to show that something is a vector space; (basically some vs all proof in 1081).
So far we have seen that it is usually fairly simple to show that a subset is not a vector space, but it will be time-consuming and tedious to show that a given subset is a vector space by checking all ten axioms. We can leverage the fact that they are subsets to make things simpler.
We first make the following definitions,
Note
Definition
A subset of a vector space is called a subspace of if is itself a vector space over the same field of scalars as and under the same rules for addition and multiplication by scalars.
In addition if there is at least one vector in which is not contained in , the subspace is called a proper subspace of .
A simple test for a subspace is given by the following theorem.
Note
The Subspace Theorem
A subset of a vector space over a field , under the same rules for addition and multiplication by scalars, is a subspace of if and only if
i) The vector in also belongs to
ii) is closed under vector addition, and
iii) is closed under multiplication by scalars from .
Proof. If is a subspace then it is a vector space.
Suppose contains the zero vector and the two closure axioms 1 and 6 are satisfied by elements of . Since is a vector space, and and are under the same operations, the vector space axioms 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 are automatically satisfied by all elements of S.
Since contains the zero vector, if , then (since this is true in and hence in , so axiom 4 follows).
Finally, if then . Hence, from part 3 of Proposition 2, we have . But, as is closed under multiplication by a scalar, we have , and hence . Thus, axiom 5 is satisfied for all vectors in S. The proof is complete.
If we want to check if is a subspace of , we should first check if the zero vector of is in . If the zero vector is in we can proceed to verify the two closure axioms. Otherwise, we can draw a conclusion that is not a subspace of . If we have proved that axioms 1, 4 and 6 are true, then axiom 5 also works automatically and need not be checked separately.
Identifying the Subspace
In order to use the subset theorem, you will need to identify a vector space containing your set .
This is where to look: In all the sets below, and are positive integers and is a field. Usually, is , or . Recall:
- is a vector space over the field .
- is a vector space over the field (and also over the field ).
- , the set of polynomials with coefficients in the field , is a vector space over .
- , the set of polynomials of degree at most with coefficients in the field , is a vector space over .
- , the set of matrices with rows and columns and with entries in the field , is a vector space over .
Example.

Proof. Since is a subset of the known vector space , we only need to verify the three conditions of the Subspace Theorem to prove it is a vector space.
1. The zero vector is in :
Let . We test if it satisfies the rule of the set by substituting and :
Since the condition is satisfied, the zero vector .
2. Closure under addition:
Let and be two random vectors in . By definition of the set, this means we know as a fact that and .
We want to test if their sum, , also satisfies the rule of the set.
Because the result is , the sum vector survives the test, meaning .
3. Closure under scalar multiplication:
Let (so ) and let be any real scalar.
We want to test if the scaled vector, , satisfies the rule.
Because the result is , the scaled vector survives the test, meaning .
Because contains the zero vector and is closed under both addition and scalar multiplication, it is a valid subspace of , and therefore it is a vector space itself.
.
Example. Show that is a vector space.
Proof. We can rewrite the equation as , and then let be the subset of defined by vectors of the form where . We can then verify the three subspace conditions.
1. The zero vector is in :
If we choose , the resulting vector in our set is:
Since we can generate the zero vector, .
2. Closure under addition:
Let and be two vectors in . By definition of the set, they must have the form:
We add them together:
Notice that the bottom component is exactly times the top component. Because the sum perfectly matches the required pattern of the set, .
3. Closure under scalar multiplication:
Let be in , and let be any real scalar.
We scale the vector:
Once again, the bottom component is exactly times the top component. The scaled vector maintains the pattern, so .
Since contains the zero vector and is closed under addition and scalar multiplication, it is a subspace of .
You can do it both ways; you can rewrite a given equation into a vector form or you can simply just use the equation as in previous examples.
Lemma. A line in is a subspace if and only if it passes through the origin;
Suppose that represents a line in . If , then is not a subspace. Hence, a line which does not pass through the origin is not a vector subspace.
If is a line through the origin we can write
where is a fixed non-zero vector in . To check if is a subspace we check the two closure axioms.
Closure under addition. If then
Hence,
where . Thus, , and hence is closed under addition.
Closure under multiplication by a scalar. We have
and hence, if ,
where . Hence , and thus is closed under multiplication by a scalar.
Therefore, by the Subspace Theorem, the line is a subspace of if it passes through the origin. A similar result to that given for lines also holds for planes.
Example. Let be the set of polynomials which satisfy all of the following conditions:
- their coefficients are complex numbers,
- their degree is at most 7,
- their second derivative evaluated at is zero.
Is a vector space over ?
Rewriting in set notation,
By the Subspace Theorem, we only check axioms 1, 4 and 6;
Closure of vector addition:
Suppose , then , if we let , then
meaning that vector addition is closed.
Closure under scalar multiplication:
Suppose , then , suppose is some constant in , and , so
Therefore, scalar multiplication is also closed (and hence negatives of vectors).
Existence of a 0 vector:
If , , but if then is also equal to zero.
In practice, some of the most important subspaces of are connected with systems of linear equations, that is, with the matrix equation .
Example. Let be an matrix with real entries. Show that the subset of which consists of all solutions of the matrix equation for given is a subspace of if and only if .
Suppose there exists a case where , then is not a solution of as , and hence does not contain the zero vector. Thus is not a subspace.
If , then is the set of solutions of . We use the Subspace Theorem to show that is a subspace.
Closure under addition. If and , then and , and hence
Thus and is closed under addition.
Closure under multiplication by a scalar. If , we have and hence for all ,
And hence is it closed under scalar multiplication.
Example. (Rapid-fire subspace drills) For each of the following sets, decide whether is a subspace. Each one hides a different trap.
(a) .
Not a subspace. Substituting the zero vector gives , so and we can stop immediately. Always test the zero vector first; if it fails you are done in one line.
(b) , i.e. the union of the two coordinate axes.
Not a subspace. It contains , and it is even closed under scalar multiplication since ; however it is not closed under addition:
Passing two of the three conditions means nothing; all three must hold.
(c) .
Subspace. Every element has the form for , so is a line through the origin, and we proved in the Lemma above that such lines are subspaces.
(d) .
Not a subspace. The zero matrix is in , and gives closure under scalar multiplication, but addition fails:
and the identity matrix has determinant , so the sum has escaped the set.
The lesson from these drills: sets defined by linear, homogeneous conditions (like or ) tend to be subspaces, while sets defined by non-linear conditions (products, determinants, inequalities) or by conditions with a non-zero right hand side tend to fail.
An important theoretical and practical problem concerning vector spaces is that of finding all their subspaces. For example, it can be shown that the only subspaces of are (1) the origin, (2) lines through the origin, and (3) itself. Similarly, for the only subspaces are (1) the origin, (2) lines through the origin, (3) planes through the origin, and (4) itself. A listing of subspaces can be given for any vector space. However, before we can investigate this problem satisfactorily, we require further machinery. This machinery will be developed in Sections 6.4 and 6.5. In vector spaces other than it may be difficult to get a good geometric feel for which subsets are subspaces. Nonetheless, the Subspace Theorem allows one a simple way to check whether a certain set is a subspace or not.
6.4 Linear combinations and spans
The two fundamental vector space operations are addition and multiplication by a scalar. If we combine these two we can result in something called "linear combinations" and "span"; a linear combination of a given set of vectors is a sum of scalar multiples of the vectors and the span of a given set of vectors is the set of all linear combinations of the vectors.
Note
Linear Combination
Let be a finite set of vectors in a vector space over a field . Then a linear combination of is a sum of scalar multiples of the form
Example. The vector is a linear combination of the vectors in the set
Example. Is a linear combination of and ?
We are looking for scalars such that . Comparing components gives three equations in only two unknowns:
Adding the first two equations,
and hence . Substituting into the third equation as a check: , which is consistent. Therefore
so is a linear combination of the two vectors. Notice that if the third component of were changed to, say, , the first two equations would still force and , but then and no combination would exist. This makes sense geometrically; in the set of all linear combinations of two (non-parallel) vectors is only a plane, so most vectors miss it.
We know that a vector space is closed under addition and multiplication of scalars, and therefore any subspace of that vector space is closed as well, so it must be closed under the operation of forming linear combinations.
Note
Span
Let be a finite set of vectors in a vector space over a field . Then the span of the set is the set of all linear combinations of , that is,
Example. The span of a non-zero vector in is a line through the origin;
This set is just span().
Example. If is a pair of non-zero, non-parallel vectors in then span() is a plane containing the origin.
Note
A span is a subspace
If is a finite, non-empty set of vectors in a vector space , then span() is a subspace of . Further, span() is the smallest subspace containing (in the sense that span() is a subspace of every subspace which contains ).
Proof. We first note that , since we may take each scalar to be zero. We know that every linear combination of is a vector in , so is a subset of .
To prove that is a subspace we will use the Subspace Theorem, so we set out to prove that is closed under addition and under multiplication by scalars. Let be the set
where all belong to .
To show closure under addition, suppose . Then
This shows that belongs to , so is closed under addition. To prove closure under multiplication by a scalar, suppose and . Then
where . This shows that belongs to , so is closed under multiplication by scalars.
We have now proved that is a subspace of . To show that it is the smallest subspace of containing , suppose is any subspace of containing . Then is itself a vector space containing and, by what we have just proved, is a subspace of . This completes the proof by showing that is a subspace of every subspace of containing .
Note
Definition 3.
A finite set of vectors in a vector space is called a spanning set for if span() = or equivalently, if every vector in can be expressed as a linear combination of vectors in .
Example. Every vector can be written as . This expresses as a linear combination of the set , where
Thus, span$(\mathbf{e}_1,\cdots,\mathbf{e}_n){\mathbf{e}_1,\cdots,\mathbf{e}_n}\mathbb{R}^n$.
Example. Let denote the space of polynomials of degree less than or equal to . Every polynomial can be written as a linear combination of the polynomials , so . We shall see later that there is no finite set of vectors whose span is all of (the vector space of all polynomials).
6.4.1 Matrices and spans in
We want to have an effective way to tell whether or not a given vector in belongs to the span of a set . From the definition of span, we know that belongs to if and only if there are such that
This equivalent to the condition that there is at least one solution to the vector equation
where are the unknowns. This vector equation represents a set of simultaneous linear equations in unknowns. Therefore the question of whether belongs to is a question of whether or not a particular set of linear equations has a solution. This is the sort of question which we studied in detail in MATH1131/41.
Furthermore, suppose that , , , , and .
If that is the matrix whose columns are the vectors then
As a result, we have the following proposition.
Proposition 3 (Matrices, Linear Combinations and Spans). If is a set of vectors in and is the matrix whose columns are the vectors then
a) a vector in can be expressed as a linear combination of if and only if it can be expressed in the form for some in ,
b) a vector in belongs to if and only if the equation has a solution in .
Example 10. For the set of three vectors
By expanding each side, it can easily be checked that
In particular, choosing ,
If we call this last vector , then is a solution of precisely because can be written as the linear combination .
This one observation powers the rest of the chapter. A useful special case: if is the th standard basis vector in , then , the th column of , since every scalar in the combination is except the th, which is .
Since the span of the columns of a matrix comes up constantly, it gets its own name.
Note
Definition 4
The subspace of spanned by the columns of an matrix is called the column space of and is denoted by .
Basically, is the set of every output that the matrix could ever produce; asking "is ?" is exactly asking "does have a solution?".
6.4.2 Solving problems about spans
By Proposition 3, every span question in turns into a question about linear equations:
where is the matrix whose columns are the vectors in . So the method is always the same: build , form the augmented matrix , reduce to row-echelon form, and read off whether the system is consistent. If the right-hand column is non-leading, a solution exists; if the right-hand column is leading, there is no solution.
Example. Is the vector in the span of the set ?
In geometric terms, we are asking whether the point lies on the plane through the origin parallel to the two vectors in . Let be the matrix whose columns are the members of , and reduce the augmented matrix to row-echelon form:
The third row reads , which is impossible; the right-hand column is a leading column, so the system has no solution. Therefore does not belong to .
Example. Find conditions which are necessary and sufficient for a vector to belong to the span of , where
Hence determine whether , and give a geometric interpretation of the span.
This time we keep a general right hand side and row-reduce:
The last row says , so the system has a solution if and only if
and this is the condition for . To test , substitute its components into the condition;
so . Geometrically, the condition is the Cartesian equation of a plane through the origin with normal ; the span of the three vectors is exactly this plane. Notice how the span of three vectors collapsed to a plane rather than filling all of — this is a preview of linear dependence, coming in 6.5.
As a sanity check, each of belongs to the span and therefore should satisfy the condition itself; for we get as expected, and you can check the other two.
Example. Determine whether or not the set is a spanning set for , where
is a spanning set for if and only if the system has a solution for every . Row-reducing the augmented matrix,
The last row now has the leading entry in the fourth column, so the right-hand column is non-leading no matter what is; the system always has a solution. Hence every belongs to , and is a spanning set for . Compare this with the previous example; the extra vector is what saved us from the plane.
Note that the third column of the row-echelon form is non-leading, and the system would still be solvable for every if that column were deleted. This means can be dropped and still spans . In general:
If the th column of the row-echelon form is non-leading, then deleting from leaves the span unchanged.
Example. (Spans outside ) Find conditions on the coefficients of so that .
Let . Then if and only if there exist such that, for all ,
Two polynomials are equal for all if and only if all their corresponding coefficients are equal, so comparing coefficients of :
The augmented matrix reduces as
The system has a solution if and only if and , so these are the conditions for to belong to . The method is identical to the case; comparing coefficients is what converts polynomials into columns of numbers.
Example. (Exam-style twist: an unknown inside the vector) For which value(s) of does belong to ?
Set up the augmented matrix exactly as before; the unknown simply rides along in the right-hand column.
The system is consistent if and only if
Therefore exactly when , in which case back substitution gives and , i.e. . The decision here is realising that a condition question and a membership question are the same computation; you row-reduce with the unknown in the augmented column and force consistency at the end.
6.5 Linear independence
Suppose that are non-zero vectors. We saw in first year that represents a plane if and are not parallel, but only a line if they are parallel. Similarly, for three non-zero vectors in , represents
i) a line if the three vectors are all parallel,
ii) a plane if they are coplanar, or
iii) the whole of otherwise.
Linear independence is the machinery that makes this "collapsing span" behaviour precise in any vector space.
Note
Definition 1
Suppose that is a subset of a vector space. The set is a linearly independent set if the only values of the scalars for which
are .
Note
Definition 2
The set is a linearly dependent set if it is not a linearly independent set; that is, if there exist scalars , not all zero, such that
Basically, choosing every scalar to be zero always produces , so that tells you nothing; independence says this trivial choice is the only way to produce . A dependent set carries redundancy — some vector in it can be manufactured out of the others, so it contributes nothing new to the span. The zero linear combination always exists; the entire question is whether it is unique.
Example. Show that the vectors and form a linearly independent set.
Applying the definition, we look for scalars such that . Comparing components gives four equations:
Each of the first three equations says exactly the same thing, namely . Substituting into the fourth,
and hence . The only solution is the zero one, so the two vectors form a linearly independent set.
Example. (Geometric meaning for pairs) Two non-zero vectors in are parallel if and only if they form a linearly dependent set.
Suppose first that are parallel, so for some non-zero . Rearranging gives , and the coefficient of is , so the set is linearly dependent.
Conversely, if the set is dependent then with not both scalars zero. Without loss of generality , so
which shows is a scalar multiple of ; also (otherwise would be ), so the multiple is non-zero and the vectors are parallel.
Example. It is easy to verify, component by component, that
so by Definition 2 this set of three vectors is linearly dependent. Notice that no two of the three vectors are parallel. For three or more vectors, checking pairs is not enough — dependence of a triple means coplanarity, and a single non-zero combination summing to is all it takes.
6.5.1 Solving problems about linear independence
Just as span questions became existence questions for , independence questions become uniqueness questions for the homogeneous system .
Note
Proposition 1
If is a set of vectors in and is the matrix whose columns are the vectors , then the set is linearly dependent if and only if the system has at least one non-zero solution .
Proof. Since , a non-zero solution of is precisely a choice of scalars, not all zero, making the linear combination equal to ; this is word for word the definition of linear dependence.
In practice, since row operations never change a zero right-hand column, we can drop the augmented column entirely and just reduce to a row-echelon form . Then
Example. Is the set a linearly independent set?
Let be the matrix whose columns are the vectors in , and reduce:
There are no non-leading columns, so the only solution of is , and hence is linearly independent.
Example. Suppose , , and (the same set that spanned in 6.4.2).
a) Prove that is a linearly dependent set.
b) Find all possible ways of writing as a linear combination of the vectors in .
c) Find a linearly independent subset of with the same span as .
a) We already reduced this matrix in 6.4.2:
The third column of is non-leading, so has infinitely many solutions, and in particular non-zero ones. Therefore is linearly dependent. (Alternatively: four vectors could never be independent in ; see Theorem 3 of 6.6.2 later.)
b) Back substitution with free: the third row gives , so ; the second row gives
and the first row gives
Hence every way of writing is of the form
c) Choosing gives , i.e.
so is redundant and . Removing the third column from and reducing,
which has no non-leading columns, so is a linearly independent subset of with the same span as .
Example. (Polynomials) Show that the set is linearly independent in .
Suppose that for all . Expanding,
and since a polynomial is the zero polynomial only when every coefficient vanishes,
Subtracting the second equation from the first gives , so and then . The only solution is the zero one; the set is linearly independent.
Example. Is the set a linearly independent subset of ?
Suppose for all . Comparing coefficients,
This is a homogeneous system of two equations in three unknowns, so its row-echelon form
must have a non-leading column (the third). There are therefore non-zero solutions, and the set is linearly dependent. Back substitution with gives and , and indeed
Although finding the explicit combination was not required, it is a very cheap way to check your row reduction.
Example. (Out of the box: functions) Show that is a linearly independent subset of the vector space of real-valued functions on , but that is linearly dependent.
For functions, the equation must hold for all , and this gives two lines of attack:
- to prove independence, plug in enough specific values to force all the scalars to zero;
- to prove dependence, produce a known identity connecting the functions.
For : suppose for all . Substituting ,
and substituting ,
Both scalars are forced to zero, so the set is linearly independent.
For : the Pythagorean identity rearranges to
which is a linear combination with scalars (not all zero) equal to the zero function. The set is linearly dependent. A set of functions can look completely unrelated and still be dependent through an identity — trig sets like this one are a classic exam trap.
6.5.2 Uniqueness and linear independence
The following theorem is one of the main reasons linear independence matters.
Note
Theorem 2 (Uniqueness of Linear Combinations)
Let be a finite, non-empty set of vectors in a vector space and let be a vector which can be written as a linear combination of . Then the values of the scalars in the linear combination for are unique if and only if is a linearly independent set.
Basically, an independent set gives every vector in its span exactly one "recipe"; a dependent set gives infinitely many recipes for anything it can make at all.
Proof. It is easier to prove the equivalent statement: the scalars are non-unique if and only if is linearly dependent. Suppose has two different expressions
Subtracting the second from the first,
and since the two expressions differ, at least one coefficient is non-zero; hence is dependent. Conversely, if is dependent then there are scalars , not all zero, with , and adding this "hidden zero" onto any expression for produces a genuinely different second expression,
Example. With the linearly dependent set from the previous section, show that belongs to , and check that the linear combination for is not unique.
Reduce the augmented matrix :
The right-hand column is non-leading, so a solution exists and ; but the third column is also non-leading, so there are infinitely many solutions and hence infinitely many expressions for as a linear combination of . Explicitly, back substitution with gives , and , so
If we drop (the vector belonging to the non-leading column) and use the independent set instead, the combination becomes unique; setting above,
6.5.3 Spans and linear independence
We have seen concrete examples of spans collapsing when the spanning vectors are dependent. The general results are collected here; they are the bridge into bases and dimension in 6.6.
Note
Theorem 3
A set of vectors is a linearly independent set if and only if no vector in can be written as a linear combination of the other vectors in , that is, if and only if no vector in is in the span of the other vectors in .
Equivalently: is dependent if and only if at least one vector in is in the span of the others. This is really just a restatement of the definition; if with some , we can solve for in terms of the rest, and conversely if then moving across gives a non-trivial combination equal to (its coefficient is ).
Example. For the dependent set from 6.5.1 we found , so . Rearranging the same relation also gives and . However is not in the span of the other three (its coefficient in every dependence relation was ). Geometrically: all lie in one plane, and sticks out of it. A dependent set does not mean that every vector is redundant — only that at least one is.
Note
Theorem 4
If is a finite subset of a vector space and the vector is in , then
Basically, adding a vector you could already build changes nothing; adding a vector you could not build genuinely enlarges the span. Combining Theorems 3 and 4:
If is linearly dependent, you can drop at least one vector from without changing the span; if is linearly independent, dropping any vector strictly shrinks the span.
In formal terms:
Note
Theorem 5
Suppose that is a finite subset of a vector space. The span of every proper subset of is a proper subspace of if and only if is a linearly independent set.
Example. For our running set, , and is linearly independent; dropping any further vector leaves only a plane, not all of , exactly as Theorem 5 predicts.
One more result, needed for the construction of bases in the next section.
Note
Theorem 6
If is a finite linearly independent subset of a vector space and is in but not in , then is a linearly independent set.
Proof. Let and suppose, for contradiction, that is dependent, so
with the scalars not all zero. If then some , contradicting the independence of . So , and dividing through by expresses as a linear combination of , contradicting . Either way we hit a contradiction, so must be independent.
6.6 Basis and dimension
We have now met the two key properties a set of vectors can have: spanning (it can build everything) and linear independence (it builds things in only one way). A set with both properties is the best of both worlds — every vector in the space gets exactly one recipe — and such sets are so important that they get their own name.
6.6.1 Bases
Note
Definition 1
A set of vectors in a vector space is called a basis for if:
- is a linearly independent set, and
- is a spanning set for (that is, ).
(We exclude the vector space consisting of only the zero vector from this discussion.)
Basically, a basis is a minimal coordinate grid for ; big enough to reach everything, with no redundant directions. Too few vectors and you cannot span; too many and you lose independence.
Example. The set of standard basis vectors is a linearly independent spanning set for (we saw both properties earlier), so it is a basis — the standard basis for . Each vector is the unique linear combination .
Example. Show that the set is a basis for .
Let be the matrix with the members of as columns and reduce for a general :
For every the right-hand column is non-leading, so always has a solution and . Moreover, the left side has no non-leading columns, so the only solution for is and is linearly independent. Hence is a basis for . One row reduction answers both basis conditions at once — never do two separate reductions.
Since a basis spans, every vector can be written as a linear combination of it; since a basis is independent, that combination is unique (Theorem 2 of 6.5.2). In summary:
Note
Unique representation property
Let be a basis for a vector space over . Every vector can be written uniquely as
Example. Write as the unique linear combination of the ordered basis of .
The scalars are the solution of :
Back substitution gives
Therefore , and by the unique representation property this is the only such expression.
Example. Let , , , and . Find a subset of which is a basis for .
Reduce the matrix with the members of as columns:
The leading columns are the first and second, so spans the same set as ; and deleting the non-leading columns from the reduction shows is independent. Hence is a basis for (which is therefore a plane in ).
Example. (Orthonormal bases) An orthonormal basis is a basis whose vectors all have length and are mutually orthogonal, like in . Orthonormality gives a shortcut for finding the scalars in a linear combination; if is orthonormal and , then dotting both sides with kills every term except the th, so
For instance, with
is an orthonormal basis for , and for a general ,
so ; no row reduction needed at all.
Example. The set is a basis for , called the standard basis for . It spans by the very definition of a polynomial of degree at most , and it is independent because for all forces every coefficient to be zero.
6.6.2 Dimension
We keep saying things like "a plane is two-dimensional". The following two theorems let us define dimension properly for any vector space with a finite basis.
Note
Theorem 1
The number of vectors in any spanning set for a vector space is always greater than or equal to the number of vectors in any linearly independent set in .
Basically, spanning sets are "big" and independent sets are "small", and they can only meet in the middle. (The proof reduces to the fact that a matrix with more rows than columns must produce a zero row in row-echelon form; we omit the details.)
Note
Theorem 2
If a vector space has a finite basis, then every basis for contains the same number of vectors.
Proof. Let (with vectors) and (with vectors) be bases for . Then by Theorem 1, since spans and is independent; and by the mirror argument. Hence .
Since the number of basis vectors does not depend on which basis you picked, the following definition makes sense.
Note
Definition 2
If is a vector space with a finite basis, then the dimension of , denoted by , is the number of vectors in any basis for . Such a is called a finite dimensional vector space.
Standard dimensions worth memorising (each comes from counting the standard basis):
The in trips everyone up at least once; the basis has elements because of the constant term. The space of geometric vectors in physical space has basis and dimension , and we define the dimension of the zero vector space to be .
Note
Theorem 3
Suppose that is a finite dimensional vector space. Then:
1. the number of vectors in any spanning set for is greater than or equal to ;
2. the number of vectors in any linearly independent set in is less than or equal to ;
3. if the number of vectors in a spanning set equals , the set is automatically linearly independent, and hence a basis;
4. if the number of vectors in a linearly independent set equals , the set is automatically a spanning set, and hence a basis.
Parts 3 and 4 are the workhorses. If you already know the dimension of the space, you only ever need to check one of the two basis conditions — the count does the other half for you.
Example. (Quick-fire applications of Theorem 3)
- The two vectors and are non-parallel, hence linearly independent; since , part 4 says they form a basis for with no spanning check needed.
- A set of three vectors can never span , since (part 1).
- Any set of vectors which spans is a basis for (part 3).
- Any linearly independent set of vectors in is a basis for (part 4).
- A set of vectors in cannot be a spanning set, as .
- Four polynomials can never be linearly independent in , since (part 2).
Example. Show that the only subspaces of are (1) the origin, (2) lines through the origin, (3) planes through the origin, and (4) itself.
By part 2 of Theorem 3, no subspace of can have dimension greater than , so the only possible dimensions are .
- Dimension is the subspace , i.e. the origin.
- A subspace of dimension has the form with , which is a line through the origin.
- A subspace of dimension has the form with independent, which is a plane through the origin.
- A subspace of dimension has a basis of three independent vectors in ; by part 4 that basis is a basis for itself, so the subspace is all of .
This finally answers the question raised at the end of 6.3.
6.6.3 Existence and construction of bases
Two natural questions: does a basis always exist, and how do we actually compute one? The existence answers are:
Note
Theorem 4
If is a finite non-empty subset of a vector space, then contains a subset which is a basis for . In particular, every non-zero vector space which can be spanned by a finite set has a basis.
Note
Theorem 5
Suppose that is a vector space which can be spanned by a finite set of vectors. If is a linearly independent subset of , then there exists a basis for which contains as a subset; i.e. every linearly independent set can be extended to a basis.
The ideas behind the proofs are simple. For Theorem 4, keep throwing away redundant vectors (Theorem 5 of 6.5.3 guarantees one exists while the set is dependent) until what remains is independent; the span never changes and the process must stop because is finite. For Theorem 5, keep adjoining vectors from outside the current span (Theorem 6 of 6.5.3 says the set stays independent) until it spans; the process cannot outrun the size of a spanning set, by Theorem 1.
Both theorems require the space to be spanned by a finite set. A vector space which cannot be spanned by any finite set is called an infinite dimensional vector space; the space of all polynomials is one (see 6.8.3).
The step-by-step procedures above would be painfully slow, because every step re-tests the whole set. In we can instead do all the deleting (or all the adding) in one row reduction.
Note
Theorem 6 (Reducing a spanning set to a basis in )
Suppose that is any subset of and is the matrix whose columns are the members of . If is a row-echelon form for and is created from by deleting those vectors which correspond to non-leading columns in , then is a basis for .
Take the surviving vectors from (the original vectors), not from — the row operations destroy the actual columns.
Example. Find a basis for, and the dimension of, the subspace of spanned by
Put the vectors in as columns and reduce:
The third and fifth columns are non-leading, so we delete the third and fifth members of and obtain the basis
for , which is therefore -dimensional. Do not confuse the dimension of a subspace with the dimension of the space it lives in — is a -dimensional subspace of , and this has nothing to do with .
Example. Show that the vectors , , , span , and find a basis for which is a subset of .
Rather than dragging a general through the reduction, we can find a basis for first; if its dimension turns out to be , then by Proposition 8 below (or Theorem 3 part 4) the span must be all of .
The third column is non-leading, so we delete ; the subset is a basis for . But is then a linearly independent set of vectors in , so it is also a basis for itself; in particular spans .
Note
Theorem 7 (Extending a linearly independent set to a basis in )
Suppose that is a linearly independent subset of and is the matrix whose columns are the members of followed by the standard basis vectors for . If is a row-echelon form for and is created by choosing those columns of which correspond to leading columns in , then is a basis for containing as a subset.
The trick: the appended standard basis vectors guarantee that the columns of span , so Theorem 6 applied to this bigger set gives a basis; and because the members of come first and are independent, their columns are all leading, so none of them get deleted.
Example. Find a basis for containing the members of the linearly independent set
Form the matrix with the members of followed by and reduce:
The leading columns are the first, second, fourth and fifth, so we take the corresponding columns of and get the basis
for . Note that the same procedure works even when is neither independent nor spanning — you form exactly the same matrix and keep the leading columns — but then the result may not contain all of .
Note
Proposition 8
If is a finite-dimensional vector space, is a subspace of and , then .
Basically, a subspace cannot have full dimension without being the whole space; a basis for is an independent set of vectors and so, by Theorem 3 part 4, a basis for all of .
Example. (Out of the box: dimension of a solution space) Find a basis for, and the dimension of, the solution space
We showed in 6.3 that solution sets of homogeneous equations are subspaces; now we can measure them. The matrix is already in row-echelon form with leading columns and , so and are free. Back substitution:
Hence every solution has the form
so . These two vectors are linearly independent (look at the second and fourth components; any combination equal to forces and ), so they form a basis and . In general,
Example. (Out of the box: dimension of a polynomial subspace) Find a basis for, and the dimension of,
Write . The condition says
so every can be rewritten as
Hence . For independence, suppose for all ; the coefficient of gives , the coefficient of gives , and the coefficient of gives . So is a basis for and .
Notice the pattern; , and imposing one linear condition knocked the dimension down by exactly one. Basically, each independent linear constraint costs one dimension — the same thing happened in the solution space example ( unknowns, equations, dimension ).
6.7 Coordinate vectors
This section is marked [X] — it is MATH1241/extension material.
Any basis for a finite-dimensional vector space gives every vector a unique linear combination. If we also fix an order on the basis vectors, then the list of scalars in that combination becomes an unambiguous label for the vector.
Note
Definition 1
Let be an -dimensional vector space and let the ordered set of vectors be a basis for . If
then the vector
is called the coordinate vector of with respect to the ordered basis .
Basically, once you fix an ordered basis, every vector in any -dimensional vector space — polynomials, matrices, functions — gets relabelled as a column vector in , and then all of our matrix machinery applies to it. The order of the basis matters; shuffling the basis vectors shuffles the coordinates.
Example. With respect to the ordered basis of , a vector has coordinate vector . Find .
This direction is pure arithmetic; the coordinates are the scalars, so
Going the other way (vector to coordinates) requires solving a linear system, as in the example in 6.6.1 where we wrote in terms of ; there we found , which in this language says with respect to the ordered basis of .
Example. (A non-standard polynomial basis) You are given the ordered basis for . Find the coordinate vector of with respect to .
We need scalars such that, for all ,
Expanding and comparing coefficients of :
From the second equation ; substituting into the third,
and adding this to the first equation,
so and . Therefore . (With respect to the standard basis the coordinate vector is just the coefficients — no working needed at all.)
Example. (Order trap in ) Find for with respect to the ordered basis .
Setting gives
Adding the equations,
so and . With the reversed ordered basis the answer flips to — same vector, different label, so always respect the given order.
The reason coordinate vectors are safe to compute with is that they respect all the vector space operations:
Note
Theorem 1
If is an ordered basis for a vector space over a field and and , then
a) if and only if ,
b) ,
c) .
Basically nothing is lost in translation between and ; adding vectors adds their coordinate vectors, scaling scales them, and equal coordinate vectors mean equal vectors (this last part is exactly the uniqueness of linear combinations from 6.5.2). This is why a question about polynomials or matrices can always be converted into a question about columns of numbers.
6.8 Further important examples of vector spaces
This section is marked [X] — it is MATH1241/extension material, and regarded as harder than the rest of the chapter.
So far nearly all the worked examples lived in . Here we apply the whole toolkit — subspaces, spans, independence, bases, dimension, coordinate vectors — to three other families: matrices, real-valued functions, and polynomials. First, a streamlined subspace test.
Note
Theorem 1 (Alternative Subspace Theorem)
A subset of a vector space over a field is a subspace of if and only if contains the zero vector and satisfies the closure condition:
This is just the Subspace Theorem with the two closure checks merged into one; taking recovers closure under addition, and taking recovers closure under scalar multiplication. One line of working instead of two.
6.8.1 Vector spaces of matrices
Recall from 6.1 that , the set of all real matrices, is a vector space over (and over ).
Example. The set is not a subspace of ; the zero matrix has s on its diagonal, so and we are done in one line.
Example. Prove that the set of real symmetric matrices is a subspace of .
Recall that is symmetric if . Let be the set of symmetric matrices. The zero matrix is clearly symmetric, so . Suppose and . Using the properties of the transpose and the symmetry of and ,
so is symmetric and belongs to . By the Alternative Subspace Theorem, is a subspace.
For and , let be the matrix with every entry except a in the th position. Any matrix can be written as , and this combination is only when every , so the set is a linearly independent spanning set — the standard basis for . Counting its members confirms .
Example. Show that the set is a basis for .
Since and we have exactly matrices, Theorem 3 part 4 of 6.6.2 says we only need to prove independence. Suppose
Equating corresponding entries gives the homogeneous system with coefficient matrix
Every column is leading, so the only solution is ; the set is independent and hence a basis. Notice that the four columns of the coefficient matrix are exactly the coordinate vectors of the four matrices with respect to the standard basis — coordinate vectors quietly converted a matrix problem into an problem.
6.8.2 Vector spaces of real-valued functions
Let be a non-empty set and let be the set of all real-valued functions on , with the usual pointwise operations
Note
Proposition 2
The system is a vector space over .
The proof is the usual slog through the ten axioms, but nothing is deep; for instance is again a real-valued function on because is defined and real for every , giving closure under addition, and each axiom for functions falls back onto the corresponding property of the real numbers. The zero vector is the zero function, which sends every to .
Calculus is a rich source of subspaces of :
- , the set of continuous functions on an interval , is a subspace of ; the zero function is continuous, and is continuous whenever and are (a fact from calculus), so the Alternative Subspace Theorem applies.
- , the functions with a continuous first derivative, is a subspace of by the identical argument (and it is also a subspace of , since differentiable functions are continuous).
Example. Let be the subset of defined by
Show that is a subspace of .
The zero function satisfies the equation, so . For and , the linearity of differentiation gives
so , and by the Alternative Subspace Theorem is a subspace.
From the theory of differential equations, the solutions of this ODE are exactly , so — a -dimensional space of functions. This is precisely why the "general solution" of a second order homogeneous linear ODE is written as arbitrary constants times two basis solutions; the solution set is a subspace and you are writing down a basis for it. Subspaces can also be carved out by integrals, e.g. for a fixed continuous is a subspace, since integration is also linear.
Linear independence questions for functions work as in the example of 6.5.1 ( independent, dependent). One further result is worth knowing: for every , the set is linearly independent — the slick proof multiplies by , integrates from to , and uses
to force for each (this is an integral version of the orthonormal basis trick from 6.6.1). Since contains arbitrarily large independent sets, it cannot be spanned by any finite set; it is an infinite dimensional vector space.
6.8.3 Vector spaces of polynomials
Here the field is always or . A polynomial over is a function of the form with the ; addition adds corresponding coefficients and scalar multiplication multiplies each coefficient, exactly as for general functions. The key structural fact is:
Note
Proposition 3 (Uniqueness Proposition for Real and Complex Polynomials)
Let and be polynomials over or . Then for all if and only if for all .
In particular is the zero polynomial (zero for all ) if and only if every coefficient is zero. This proposition is the licence behind every "compare coefficients" step we have done; it converts an equation between polynomials into a linear system for the coefficients. (It fails over more exotic fields, but we will not meet those here.)
The set of all polynomials over , with these operations, is a vector space over , and is a subspace of it (both seen earlier). The field of scalars has to be compatible with the polynomials though:
Example. The system of complex polynomials with real scalars is a vector space, but of real polynomials with complex scalars is not; take and the scalar , then , so closure under scalar multiplication fails (all other nine axioms actually hold, which shows how a system can fail by a single axiom).
Example. Let be the polynomials of degree at most over . Show that
is a subspace of if and only if .
If , the zero polynomial is not in (it evaluates to at ), so is not a subspace. If , the zero polynomial is in , and for and ,
so and, by the Alternative Subspace Theorem, is a subspace. Therefore is a subspace if and only if ; when , is the set of polynomials in with a root at .
Example. Does the complex polynomial belong to , where
We need scalars with ; comparing coefficients of (using the Uniqueness Proposition),
The third equation forces , then the second gives , but then
so the system is inconsistent and .
Example. Show that the set is a basis for .
Since and contains exactly vectors, we only need to check independence (Theorem 3 part 4 again). Suppose for all . Collecting powers of ,
so, comparing coefficients,
The second equation gives and the first gives ; substituting both into the third,
and hence . The set is linearly independent, and therefore a basis for .
Finally, itself has no finite basis; if a finite set of polynomials spanned , there would be a highest-degree polynomial in , say of degree , and then no polynomial of degree greater than could ever be in (linear combinations cannot raise the degree). Hence is infinite dimensional, while
6.9 A brief review of set and function notation
This is a quick reference appendix; nothing here is new.
A set is any collection of elements, written with braces, e.g. . Sets defined by a rule use set-builder notation:
reads "the set of vectors in such that and " — the colon is read as "such that" and the comma as "and".
- Equality. means every element of is in and every element of is in ; proving equality always means proving both inclusions.
- Subset. means every element of is also an element of .
- Proper subset. is a proper subset of if and at least one element of is not in .
- Intersection. .
- Union. .
The notation reads " is a function from the set to the set "; it means assigns exactly one element to each . is the domain and the codomain. Two functions are equal if and only if for all (this "for all" is what made the polynomial and function examples in this chapter tick). The operations used throughout the chapter are all defined pointwise:
Only the first two matter for vector space structure; multiplication and composition of functions are extra operations that vector spaces know nothing about.