I need to decide wether the following is true (and, of course, justify it): given $V = [v_1, v_2, ..., v_n]$, $v$, $w$ in $V$ and $<v,v_i> = <w,v_i>$, for any $i$, so $v = w$.
I wrote the following: if $v$ is in V, we have $ v = \alpha_1v1 + \alpha_2v_2 + \dots + \alpha_nv_n$. The same holds for $w$: $w = \beta_1v_1 + \beta_2v_2 + \dots + \beta_nv_n$. Now $<v,v_i> = <\alpha_1v1 + \alpha_2v_2 + \dots + \alpha_nv_n, v_i>$ and $<w,v_i> = <\beta_1v_1 + \beta_2v_2 + \dots + \beta_nv_n, v_i>$.
But $<v,v_i> = <\alpha_1v1 + \alpha_2v_2 + \dots + \alpha_nv_n, v_i> = \alpha_1<v_1,v_i> + \alpha_2<v_2,v_i> + \dots + \alpha_n<v_n,v_i>$ due to linearity property of the internal product. Also, $<w,v_i> = <\beta_1v1 + \beta_2v_2 + \dots + \beta_nv_n, v_i> = \beta_1<v_1,v_i> + \beta_2<v_2,v_i> + \dots + \beta_n<v_n,v_i>$.
The only way we can have $<v,v_i> = <w,v_i>$ is if $\alpha_j = \beta_j, j = 1, \dots, n$. But if $\alpha_j = \beta_j, j = 1, \dots, n$ implies $v=w$ because they are from the same span.
Is this correct? Is it enough to justify? The proof would still hold if nothing was said about $v$ and $w$ in $V$?
This is correct.
Another way would be to suppose $v\neq w$. Then $v-w\neq0$ so that $$ \left\langle v-w, v-w\right\rangle =\left\lVert v-w\right\rVert^2 >0 $$ On the other hand, the nonzero vector $v-w$ is guaranteed to be a vector in a basis, so $$ \left\langle v-w, v-w\right\rangle = \langle v, v-w\rangle-\langle w, v-w\rangle = \langle v, v-w\rangle-\langle v, v-w\rangle = 0 $$ This contradiction implies that $v=w$.