Understanding the proof of "If $V$ is $n$ dimensional vectors space then a set in $V$ with fewer than $n$ vectors does not span $V$ "

341 Views Asked by At

In below image author has proved the theorem which states that,

"Let $V$ ve a finite dimensional vector space and $\{v_1,v_2,...,v_n\}$ is basis for $V$ then, "If a set in $V$ has fewer than $n$ vectors then it does not span $V$ "

proof

How author has derived the linear system indicated by an arrow in the picture?

My attempt: using equation (4), equation (5) implies,

$k_1(a_{11}w_1+a_{21}w_2+...+a_{m1}w_m)+k_2(a_{12}w_1+a_{22}w_2+...+a_{m2}w_m)+...+...+k_n(a_{1n}w_1+a_{2n}w_2+...+a_{mn}w_m=0$

Which implies,

$(a_{11}k_1+a_{12}k_2+...+a_{1n}k_n)w_1+(a_{21}k_1+a_{22}k_2+...+a_{2n}k_n)w_2+...+(a_{m1}k_1+a_{m2}k_2+...+a_{mn}k_n)w_m=0$

From this to conclude homogeneous linear system indicated by arrow (in pic) we must have $w_1,...,w_m$ must be linearly independent. But, here we doesn't know whether $w_i$'s are linearly independent or not! So how author has derived homogeneous linear system in equation indicated by arrow (in pic)

Please help..

2

There are 2 best solutions below

3
On BEST ANSWER

Let's solve the following linear system of equations for $x_i'$s, $1\le i\le m$:

$\begin{align} &a_{11}x_1+a_{12}x_2+\cdots+a_{1n}x_n=0\\ &a_{21}x_1+a_{22}x_2+\cdots+a_{2n}x_n=0\\ &\cdots\quad\cdots\quad \cdots\quad \cdots \\ &a_{m1}x_1+a_{m2}x_2+\cdots+a_{mn}x_n=0 \end{align}\tag A$

What property do these $x_i$'s have? It can be shown that they satisfy $x_1v_1+x_2v_2+\cdots+x_nv_n=0\tag B$

Since $m<n$, it follows that $(A)$ has a non-trivial solution i.e., in particular there exist $x_1,x_2,...,x_n$ not all zero. These $x_i$'s must satisfy $(A)$.

But since $v_i$'s are linearly independent, it follows from $(B)$ that $x_i=0$ for all $1\le i\le n$. This contradicts conclusion in last para.

It follows that the assumption that $w_i$'s span $V$ is not correct.

0
On

If the $\{w_i\}$ are linearly independent then the system of equations you have indicated with an orange arrow necessarily holds in a unique way. If they happen to be linearly dependent, then this may be one of many solutions.

In other words, you do not need the $\{w_i\}$ to be linearly independent to reach the system of equations the author is showing, as he is proving that that there exists some set of scalars such that some are non-zero and for which (5) still holds. This is why he imposed them to be 0.