Vector Space Basis and the Axiom of Choice: Are They Interchangeable?

In summary, the existence of a basis in all vector spaces and the axiom of choice are not equivalent, but the axiom of choice does imply the existence of a basis in all vector spaces. This can be proven using Zorn's lemma and the ultrafilter principle. Additionally, the cardinality of any two bases for a vector space must be the same, but this does not require the axiom of choice.
  • #1
chingkui
181
2
Is the existence of basis in all vector space equivalent to the axiom of choice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's certainly a consequence of the axiom of choice. I doubt that they're equivalent, but I don't have a proof, or even a concrete idea for answering the question. If you get an answer, let me know. :smile:
 
  • #3
well it requires the ability to choose a maximal chain from any set of independent sets ordered by inclusion, and any set can be the basis of a vector space, so it might be pretty general, i.e. a pretty general form of maximal principel which is equivalent.
 
  • #4
What do you mean by this Mathwonk?
I recall my linear algebra textbook saying that if the axiom of choice was used it can be shown that any vector space has a basis but it didn't say how...
 
  • #5
How do you picka basis: take one vector, then look at the complementary space to its span. Pick a vector in there, look in the complement to the span of these two and so on. if it's finite dimensional all well and good, but infinite dim means we ave to make an infinite number of compatible choices and it isn't clear that this is possible.
 
  • #6
However, we don't seem to be able to answer whether or not the existence of a basis in every vector space implies the axiom of choice.
 
  • #7
I would guess that to be false, but it is a guess. How about the refinement "every vector space has a basis, and the cardinaltity of any choice of basis is the same".
 
  • #8
How is it a refinement of the relation between existence of basis and axiom of choice?
 
  • #9
Any two bases must have the same cardinality.

Suppose B and C are both bases for V, and that |B| < |C|.

Every element of B is a linear combination of finitely many elements of C, and this defines a function f:B --> P(C)


Now, let D = U f(B), the union of all the sets in the image of f. Because f(b) is finite for each b in B, we have that |D| = |B|.

Because B is a basis for V, then so is D. But, because |D| = |B| < |C|, C cannot be a basis.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Hurkyl said:
Every element of B is a linear combination of finitely many elements of C, and this defines a function f:B --> P(C)
What is P(C)? The power set of C? I don't understand. And isn't this theorem supposed to rely on Zorn's lemma?
 
  • #11
Yes, P(C) is the power set.

The existence of a basis requires the axiom of choice. I'm pretty sure you don't need the axiom of choice to prove that if you have two bases, their cardinalities are equal.
 
  • #12
how does an element of B being a linear combination of elements of C make a function from B to P(C)? Is it just that if b= a1*c1 + ... +an*cn, then f maps b to {c1,...,cn}, disregarding the coefficients?

also, why must f(B) be finite? For example, if the two bases are the same, the image of each b in B is a singleton set, but f(B) is not finite.
 
  • #13
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/EveryVectorSpaceHasABasis.html

answers the original question
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
That was a typo! It was supposed to say that f(b) is finite for each b in B. You have the definition of f correct, except for one technical detail -- f(b) only includes those ci for which ai is not zero.

Is "support" the word I'm looking for? I.E. "f(b) is the support of b in the basis C." (or something like that?)
 
  • #15
Hurkyl said:
I'm pretty sure you don't need the axiom of choice to prove that if you have two bases, their cardinalities are equal.
Apparently, you need the ultrafilter principle, which follows from the AC, but is not equivalent to it. So I was right that the uniqueness of cardinality of basis doesn't follow from ZF, but wrong in assuming that it requires choice. See Schechter HAF
 
  • #16
Hurkyl said:
Is "support" the word I'm looking for? I.E. "f(b) is the support of b in the basis C." (or something like that?)
the support of a function is the closure of the set where the function is nonzero. unless we're talking about topological vector spaces, I don't think we can apply that term.
 

Related to Vector Space Basis and the Axiom of Choice: Are They Interchangeable?

What is the Basis and Axiom of Choice?

The Basis and Axiom of Choice are two fundamental concepts in set theory. The Basis is a collection of elements that are used to construct other objects, while the Axiom of Choice is a principle that allows for the selection of one element from each set in a collection of non-empty sets.

Why is the Axiom of Choice important?

The Axiom of Choice is important because it allows for the creation of infinite sets, which are essential in many areas of mathematics and science. It also helps in proving the existence of certain mathematical objects, such as well-orderings, which cannot be constructed without the Axiom of Choice.

What is the controversy surrounding the Axiom of Choice?

The controversy surrounding the Axiom of Choice stems from the fact that its use can lead to counterintuitive results, such as the Banach-Tarski paradox, which states that a solid ball can be disassembled into a finite number of pieces and rearranged to form two identical copies of the original ball. Some mathematicians argue that the Axiom of Choice should not be considered as a valid principle, while others believe that it is necessary for the development of mathematics.

How does the Axiom of Choice relate to Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory?

The Axiom of Choice is one of the axioms in the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which is the most commonly used foundation for mathematics. It is included as the fourth axiom in the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and its acceptance has been a subject of debate among mathematicians since its introduction.

Can the Axiom of Choice be proven?

No, the Axiom of Choice cannot be proven within the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It is an axiom that is accepted as true without proof, and its validity is based on its usefulness in mathematics and the lack of any known contradictions that arise from its use.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
9
Views
691
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
9
Views
354
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
6
Views
988
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
18
Views
485
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
399
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Back
Top