Is the set { (0,0) } a vector space in R^2?

- anonymous

Is the set { (0,0) } a vector space in R^2?

- jamiebookeater

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- anonymous

In order to be a vector space, the set must satisfy about 7-8 conditions that prove it is closed under vector addition and scalar multiplication. Do you have the list of conditions?

- anonymous

no, I don't have the list

- anonymous

What do you have for a definition of a vector space?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- anonymous

I remember the 0 vector must in the set is one of the conditions

- anonymous

OK, here we go. For all of these conditions, assume X and Y are vectors belonging to the set. Since this set has only one member, X=Y=(0,0).

- anonymous

The first one is that the set must be commutative, i.e. X+Y = Y+X. Is this condition satisfied for this set?

- anonymous

yes

- anonymous

Great. The set must also be associative, i.e. (X+Y)+Z=X+(Y+Z). Is this satisfied? Oh, Z is also a member of the set.

- anonymous

yeah

- anonymous

Good. There also must exist an additive identity, a vector A such that A+X=X+A=X. Does such a vector exist?

- anonymous

yeah. the vector (0,0)

- anonymous

You're very good. There must be an additive inverse. For every X, there must be a -X such that X+(-X)=0. This satisfied?

- anonymous

yeah

- anonymous

We're getting there. The set must be associative under scalar multiplication. For scalars r and s, (rs)X=r(sX). This one OK?

- anonymous

yes

- anonymous

Great. Scalar sums must be distributive, i.e. (r+s)X = rX + sX. This one OK?

- anonymous

yes

- anonymous

Good. Two to go. Vector sums must be distributive, i.e. r(X +Y) = rX + rY. This one OK?

- anonymous

yes

- anonymous

Super. Last one. There must exist a scalar multiplication identity, a scalar r such that rX = X. What do you think?

- anonymous

r = 1?

- anonymous

Perfect. All conditions are satisfied so you have proven that your set is a vector space. Lot of work. Well done!

- anonymous

oh... also. Do additive inverses have to be in the set?

- anonymous

Yes.

- anonymous

so the set { (x,y) : x,r >0 } isn't a vector space?

- anonymous

sorry, x,y > 0

- anonymous

I was just checking my notes. I stand corrected. The additive inverse must exist, but there is no requirement I can see that it has to be in the set. Might want to confirm that with a Google search.

- anonymous

This site states that additive inverses must be in the set:
http://www.math.niu.edu/~beachy/courses/240/06spring/vectorspace.html
But this site doesn't seem to say so
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tao/resource/general/121.1.00s/vector_axioms.html

- anonymous

The statement I have says "For every X in vector space V, there exists a -X such that X + (-X) = 0. If this is correct then there is no requirement for -X to be in the vector space. Wolfram Alpha seems to agree.

- anonymous

huhm... It could be the first site is wrong.

- anonymous

Just dug out my textbook. Yes, -X must be in the set. Your two references both confirm this. Must be an oversight on Wolfram.

- anonymous

o: Wikipedia says they don't have to be in the set.

- anonymous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space#Definition

- anonymous

I think it does it says "there exists an element -v in V..."

- anonymous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space

- anonymous

ahhhh! I overlooked! XD. Ok, so additive inverse do indeed have to be in the set. So the example I gave above isn't a vector space since (-x,-y) isn't in the set

- anonymous

That would be correct. Good discussion. Glad to have that sorted out.

- anonymous

awesome! Thank you for your time :')

- anonymous

Any time. Keep up the good work!

- anonymous

all you need to actually prove is, since we're dealing with a subset of \(\mathbb{R}^2\) which presumably you already know is a vector space, that we have closure under addition and scaling: $$k(0,0)=(0,0)\\(0,0)+(0,0)=(0,0)$$ so we're set -- the other properties are inherited from the parent space

- anonymous

@oldrin.bataku thanks. Proving the set is closed under addition and multiplication is definitely quicker than checking those axioms in the definition.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.