Proof verification: Every set that contains a linearly dependent set is linearly dependent.












0












$begingroup$


I wrote a proof for a theorem and would appreciate if someone could check if my proof is sound. Thanks a lot.



$Theorem$:



Every set that contains a linearly dependent set is linearly dependent.



$Proof$:



Let $S={v_1, v_2,...,v_k}$ be a set of vectors. Let $L={v_1, v_2, ..., v_l} subset S$, $l lt k$, be a linearly dependent subset of $S$.



Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist, without loss of generality, $v_1 in L$ such that



$$sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i = v_1, alpha_i in mathbb{R}$$



Then we can write a sum



$$sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i + sum_{i = l+1}^k 0 v_i= v_1 =$$
$$sum_{i=2}^k alpha_i v_i = v_1$$
where $alpha_i=0$ for $l+1 lt ilt k$.



Rearranging,
$$sum_{i=2}^k alpha_i v_i - v_1 = 0 iff sum_{i=1}^k alpha_i v_i = 0$$
with $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero.
Thus, the set $S$ is linearly dependent. This completes the proof.






proof-verification vector-spaces







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Perfect!$hspace{0pt}$
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 8 at 7:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit Sure about that?
    $endgroup$
    – José Carlos Santos
    Jan 8 at 7:20
















0












$begingroup$


I wrote a proof for a theorem and would appreciate if someone could check if my proof is sound. Thanks a lot.



$Theorem$:



Every set that contains a linearly dependent set is linearly dependent.



$Proof$:



Let $S={v_1, v_2,...,v_k}$ be a set of vectors. Let $L={v_1, v_2, ..., v_l} subset S$, $l lt k$, be a linearly dependent subset of $S$.



Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist, without loss of generality, $v_1 in L$ such that



$$sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i = v_1, alpha_i in mathbb{R}$$



Then we can write a sum



$$sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i + sum_{i = l+1}^k 0 v_i= v_1 =$$
$$sum_{i=2}^k alpha_i v_i = v_1$$
where $alpha_i=0$ for $l+1 lt ilt k$.



Rearranging,
$$sum_{i=2}^k alpha_i v_i - v_1 = 0 iff sum_{i=1}^k alpha_i v_i = 0$$
with $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero.
Thus, the set $S$ is linearly dependent. This completes the proof.






proof-verification vector-spaces







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Perfect!$hspace{0pt}$
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 8 at 7:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit Sure about that?
    $endgroup$
    – José Carlos Santos
    Jan 8 at 7:20














0












0








0





$begingroup$


I wrote a proof for a theorem and would appreciate if someone could check if my proof is sound. Thanks a lot.



$Theorem$:



Every set that contains a linearly dependent set is linearly dependent.



$Proof$:



Let $S={v_1, v_2,...,v_k}$ be a set of vectors. Let $L={v_1, v_2, ..., v_l} subset S$, $l lt k$, be a linearly dependent subset of $S$.



Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist, without loss of generality, $v_1 in L$ such that



$$sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i = v_1, alpha_i in mathbb{R}$$



Then we can write a sum



$$sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i + sum_{i = l+1}^k 0 v_i= v_1 =$$
$$sum_{i=2}^k alpha_i v_i = v_1$$
where $alpha_i=0$ for $l+1 lt ilt k$.



Rearranging,
$$sum_{i=2}^k alpha_i v_i - v_1 = 0 iff sum_{i=1}^k alpha_i v_i = 0$$
with $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero.
Thus, the set $S$ is linearly dependent. This completes the proof.






proof-verification vector-spaces







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I wrote a proof for a theorem and would appreciate if someone could check if my proof is sound. Thanks a lot.



$Theorem$:



Every set that contains a linearly dependent set is linearly dependent.



$Proof$:



Let $S={v_1, v_2,...,v_k}$ be a set of vectors. Let $L={v_1, v_2, ..., v_l} subset S$, $l lt k$, be a linearly dependent subset of $S$.



Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist, without loss of generality, $v_1 in L$ such that



$$sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i = v_1, alpha_i in mathbb{R}$$



Then we can write a sum



$$sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i + sum_{i = l+1}^k 0 v_i= v_1 =$$
$$sum_{i=2}^k alpha_i v_i = v_1$$
where $alpha_i=0$ for $l+1 lt ilt k$.



Rearranging,
$$sum_{i=2}^k alpha_i v_i - v_1 = 0 iff sum_{i=1}^k alpha_i v_i = 0$$
with $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero.
Thus, the set $S$ is linearly dependent. This completes the proof.






proof-verification vector-spaces




proof-verification vector-spaces






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 8 at 7:14









Ulrich Paul WohakUlrich Paul Wohak

52




52












  • $begingroup$
    Perfect!$hspace{0pt}$
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 8 at 7:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit Sure about that?
    $endgroup$
    – José Carlos Santos
    Jan 8 at 7:20


















  • $begingroup$
    Perfect!$hspace{0pt}$
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 8 at 7:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit Sure about that?
    $endgroup$
    – José Carlos Santos
    Jan 8 at 7:20
















$begingroup$
Perfect!$hspace{0pt}$
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 8 at 7:15




$begingroup$
Perfect!$hspace{0pt}$
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 8 at 7:15




1




1




$begingroup$
@TheoBendit Sure about that?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 8 at 7:20




$begingroup$
@TheoBendit Sure about that?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 8 at 7:20










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

It is not correct. You actually did not use the fact that $L$ is linearly dependent at all. In the second paragraph of you proof, you should have written that, since $L$ is linearly dependente, there are numbers $alpha_1,ldots,alpha_linmathbb R$ not all of which are $0$ such that $sum_{j=1}^lalpha_jv_j=0$.



Besides, you assumed that $S$ is finite, but the statement that you are trying to prove doesn't contain that assumption.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you Jose! Assuming that $S$ is finite, and starting with: Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero such that $sum_{i=1}^l alpha_i v_i = 0$, it follows that, without loss of generality, $v_1 = sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i$. If I then continue with the rest of my proof, would that work?
    $endgroup$
    – Ulrich Paul Wohak
    Jan 8 at 7:27












  • $begingroup$
    Yes, it would be fine.
    $endgroup$
    – José Carlos Santos
    Jan 8 at 7:31










  • $begingroup$
    Muchas gracias! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Ulrich Paul Wohak
    Jan 8 at 7:32



















0












$begingroup$

Suppose on contrary let us consider a set S which is linearly independent and a subset T which is linearly dependent. Now we claim that every suset of linearly independent set is linearly independent
Now if it is singleton then we have done because every single vector is linearly independent And if it is not singleton then we have,suppose it is linearly dependent then there exit some scalars atleast one of them is non zero which is not possible. This shows that every suset of LI set is LI Since we have a subset T which is linearly dependent of a set S which is linearly independent then by above result S have to be linearly dependent which contradicts our assumption. Hence,every suset of LD is LD






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065884%2fproof-verification-every-set-that-contains-a-linearly-dependent-set-is-linearly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    It is not correct. You actually did not use the fact that $L$ is linearly dependent at all. In the second paragraph of you proof, you should have written that, since $L$ is linearly dependente, there are numbers $alpha_1,ldots,alpha_linmathbb R$ not all of which are $0$ such that $sum_{j=1}^lalpha_jv_j=0$.



    Besides, you assumed that $S$ is finite, but the statement that you are trying to prove doesn't contain that assumption.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thank you Jose! Assuming that $S$ is finite, and starting with: Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero such that $sum_{i=1}^l alpha_i v_i = 0$, it follows that, without loss of generality, $v_1 = sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i$. If I then continue with the rest of my proof, would that work?
      $endgroup$
      – Ulrich Paul Wohak
      Jan 8 at 7:27












    • $begingroup$
      Yes, it would be fine.
      $endgroup$
      – José Carlos Santos
      Jan 8 at 7:31










    • $begingroup$
      Muchas gracias! :)
      $endgroup$
      – Ulrich Paul Wohak
      Jan 8 at 7:32
















    2












    $begingroup$

    It is not correct. You actually did not use the fact that $L$ is linearly dependent at all. In the second paragraph of you proof, you should have written that, since $L$ is linearly dependente, there are numbers $alpha_1,ldots,alpha_linmathbb R$ not all of which are $0$ such that $sum_{j=1}^lalpha_jv_j=0$.



    Besides, you assumed that $S$ is finite, but the statement that you are trying to prove doesn't contain that assumption.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thank you Jose! Assuming that $S$ is finite, and starting with: Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero such that $sum_{i=1}^l alpha_i v_i = 0$, it follows that, without loss of generality, $v_1 = sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i$. If I then continue with the rest of my proof, would that work?
      $endgroup$
      – Ulrich Paul Wohak
      Jan 8 at 7:27












    • $begingroup$
      Yes, it would be fine.
      $endgroup$
      – José Carlos Santos
      Jan 8 at 7:31










    • $begingroup$
      Muchas gracias! :)
      $endgroup$
      – Ulrich Paul Wohak
      Jan 8 at 7:32














    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    It is not correct. You actually did not use the fact that $L$ is linearly dependent at all. In the second paragraph of you proof, you should have written that, since $L$ is linearly dependente, there are numbers $alpha_1,ldots,alpha_linmathbb R$ not all of which are $0$ such that $sum_{j=1}^lalpha_jv_j=0$.



    Besides, you assumed that $S$ is finite, but the statement that you are trying to prove doesn't contain that assumption.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    It is not correct. You actually did not use the fact that $L$ is linearly dependent at all. In the second paragraph of you proof, you should have written that, since $L$ is linearly dependente, there are numbers $alpha_1,ldots,alpha_linmathbb R$ not all of which are $0$ such that $sum_{j=1}^lalpha_jv_j=0$.



    Besides, you assumed that $S$ is finite, but the statement that you are trying to prove doesn't contain that assumption.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 8 at 7:20









    José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

    154k22123226




    154k22123226












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you Jose! Assuming that $S$ is finite, and starting with: Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero such that $sum_{i=1}^l alpha_i v_i = 0$, it follows that, without loss of generality, $v_1 = sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i$. If I then continue with the rest of my proof, would that work?
      $endgroup$
      – Ulrich Paul Wohak
      Jan 8 at 7:27












    • $begingroup$
      Yes, it would be fine.
      $endgroup$
      – José Carlos Santos
      Jan 8 at 7:31










    • $begingroup$
      Muchas gracias! :)
      $endgroup$
      – Ulrich Paul Wohak
      Jan 8 at 7:32


















    • $begingroup$
      Thank you Jose! Assuming that $S$ is finite, and starting with: Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero such that $sum_{i=1}^l alpha_i v_i = 0$, it follows that, without loss of generality, $v_1 = sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i$. If I then continue with the rest of my proof, would that work?
      $endgroup$
      – Ulrich Paul Wohak
      Jan 8 at 7:27












    • $begingroup$
      Yes, it would be fine.
      $endgroup$
      – José Carlos Santos
      Jan 8 at 7:31










    • $begingroup$
      Muchas gracias! :)
      $endgroup$
      – Ulrich Paul Wohak
      Jan 8 at 7:32
















    $begingroup$
    Thank you Jose! Assuming that $S$ is finite, and starting with: Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero such that $sum_{i=1}^l alpha_i v_i = 0$, it follows that, without loss of generality, $v_1 = sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i$. If I then continue with the rest of my proof, would that work?
    $endgroup$
    – Ulrich Paul Wohak
    Jan 8 at 7:27






    $begingroup$
    Thank you Jose! Assuming that $S$ is finite, and starting with: Since $L$ is linearly dependent, there must exist $alpha_i in mathbb{R}$ not all zero such that $sum_{i=1}^l alpha_i v_i = 0$, it follows that, without loss of generality, $v_1 = sum_{i=2}^l alpha_i v_i$. If I then continue with the rest of my proof, would that work?
    $endgroup$
    – Ulrich Paul Wohak
    Jan 8 at 7:27














    $begingroup$
    Yes, it would be fine.
    $endgroup$
    – José Carlos Santos
    Jan 8 at 7:31




    $begingroup$
    Yes, it would be fine.
    $endgroup$
    – José Carlos Santos
    Jan 8 at 7:31












    $begingroup$
    Muchas gracias! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Ulrich Paul Wohak
    Jan 8 at 7:32




    $begingroup$
    Muchas gracias! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Ulrich Paul Wohak
    Jan 8 at 7:32











    0












    $begingroup$

    Suppose on contrary let us consider a set S which is linearly independent and a subset T which is linearly dependent. Now we claim that every suset of linearly independent set is linearly independent
    Now if it is singleton then we have done because every single vector is linearly independent And if it is not singleton then we have,suppose it is linearly dependent then there exit some scalars atleast one of them is non zero which is not possible. This shows that every suset of LI set is LI Since we have a subset T which is linearly dependent of a set S which is linearly independent then by above result S have to be linearly dependent which contradicts our assumption. Hence,every suset of LD is LD






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Suppose on contrary let us consider a set S which is linearly independent and a subset T which is linearly dependent. Now we claim that every suset of linearly independent set is linearly independent
      Now if it is singleton then we have done because every single vector is linearly independent And if it is not singleton then we have,suppose it is linearly dependent then there exit some scalars atleast one of them is non zero which is not possible. This shows that every suset of LI set is LI Since we have a subset T which is linearly dependent of a set S which is linearly independent then by above result S have to be linearly dependent which contradicts our assumption. Hence,every suset of LD is LD






      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Suppose on contrary let us consider a set S which is linearly independent and a subset T which is linearly dependent. Now we claim that every suset of linearly independent set is linearly independent
        Now if it is singleton then we have done because every single vector is linearly independent And if it is not singleton then we have,suppose it is linearly dependent then there exit some scalars atleast one of them is non zero which is not possible. This shows that every suset of LI set is LI Since we have a subset T which is linearly dependent of a set S which is linearly independent then by above result S have to be linearly dependent which contradicts our assumption. Hence,every suset of LD is LD






        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$



        Suppose on contrary let us consider a set S which is linearly independent and a subset T which is linearly dependent. Now we claim that every suset of linearly independent set is linearly independent
        Now if it is singleton then we have done because every single vector is linearly independent And if it is not singleton then we have,suppose it is linearly dependent then there exit some scalars atleast one of them is non zero which is not possible. This shows that every suset of LI set is LI Since we have a subset T which is linearly dependent of a set S which is linearly independent then by above result S have to be linearly dependent which contradicts our assumption. Hence,every suset of LD is LD







        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered Jan 8 at 9:00









        Abhishek TripathiAbhishek Tripathi

        1




        1




        New contributor




        Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Abhishek Tripathi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065884%2fproof-verification-every-set-that-contains-a-linearly-dependent-set-is-linearly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Mario Kart Wii

            Image
            Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
            Read more

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Image
            5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
            Read more

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

            Image
            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
            Read more