Talk:Basis (linear algebra)

Some points

• "every vector in V can be written uniquely as a finite linear combination of vectors in the basis". Is it necessary to say finite here?
• "Every nonzero vector space has a basis". Why non-zero? The zero space has the empty set as basis.
• "Every nonzero vector space has a basis". Strictly speaking this requires Axiom of Choice.
• "and in fact, infinitely many different bases". The first clue that these are real vector spaces.
• "every finite dimensional vector space can be considered to be essentially 'the same as' a Euclidean space". I disagree, Euclidean space has a metric, which general vector spaces don't, and the different coordinate mappings will induce different metrics back on the vector space.
• It needs to be stated that the number of elements in a basis is always the same, hence the definition of dimension.

Richard Pinch 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was still revising the page, so you beat me to the punch.

• I used the word "finite" not because it is necessary (which it isn't), but to emphasize the fact that bases can be infinite sets but that infinite sums are not a permitted construction in general vector spaces. I think it is useful here, but some may disagree.

• This is assuming you define the span of a set to be the intersection of all subspaces containing the set, and a basis as a linearly independent spanning set. Or, if you use my definition of basis, it assumes you define the "empty linear combination" to be the zero vector . Aiming this article at someone with little or no exposure to vector spaces, I tried to avoid this pathological case. As written, non-zero is still correct, and perhaps somewhere further down the article, it can be mentioned that it is useful to consider the empty set as a basis for the trivial space.

• True about the axiom of choice, and I did forget it -- but again, not something to mention to the non-initiate. It should be mentioned on the "advanced" subpage.

• Yes, I am implicitly assuming these are real (or complex vector spaces). In my mind, the average university-educated non-specialist is not going to look up basis trying to learn about a one-dimensional space over Z_2. On the other hand, something that must be emphasized to students just learning linear algebra (and hence, to any who aren't experts) is that generally, bases are not canonical (although certainly standard bases for various spaces should be mentioned further down the article).

• Sure, Euclidean space has additional structure beyond its vector space structure. But this is a page about vector spaces. Recognizing this difference, I put "the same as" in quotes. You could also say that the complex numbers are not the same as R^2, because you can multiply complex numbers naturally, but the corresponding construct on R^2 looks contrived. However, I have heard experts say colloquially "thinking of C as R^2...". Perhaps there could be a section mentioning inner products, and in that section, mention that R^n has a distinction from general vector spaces arising from the usual metric on R^n. I put this in because I think many texts do not emphasize enough how much similarity a vector space of dimension n has with R^n. I view correspondence of the algebra of endomorphisms of a finite dimensional vector spaces with a matrix algebra as the climactic point of an introductory linear algebra class (excepting some cool stuff once you introduce inner products).

• Yes, the independent dimension property was going to get mentioned when I revised further (of course, without using that cumbersome terminology).

It seems to me that we may have a difference in philosophy as to how articles should be written. I like to follow Halmos's advice (certainly a great expositor): "There is a difference between misleading statements and false ones; striving for 'the clear reception of the message' you are sometimes allowed to lie a little, but you must never mislead." (from I want to be a Mathematician, an Automathography, p.113). I would place all of (1)avoiding the trivial vector space, (2)avoiding mentioning the axiom of choice, (3)implicitly assuming scalars are an infinite field, and (4)saying that finite dimensional vector spaces are "the same as" euclidean space in the "lying, but not misleading" category. So first, do you agree with Halmos and I, and second, would you classify any of these topics as "misleading" instead? In any case, thanks for your vigilant and pertinent comments.Barry R. Smith 20:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)