Chapter 1

Linear vector spaces

1.1 Prelude - revisting the good old vectors

The ordinary three dimensional vectors are bread and butter to all followers of physics - so the following facts may seem too trivial to bother about to you. However, just bear with me for a while - supress that yawn, and read on : The rst thing that we learn about vectors are that they are stu which have both magnitude and direction and they add according to the parallelogram law. Note that the word add is used here to stand for an operation that you do to two vectors to get a third one. This addition is, indeed, quiet dierent from the addition of numbers that we have been trained to do from early childhood. However, the reason that we can use the word add in this context without feeling very uncomfortable over it is due to the fact that the parallelogram law of addition of two vectors shares quiet a few properties with the addition of numbers. For example, adding two vectors always gives you the same result, irrespective of which one is placed rst a+b=b+a just the same way as 3 + 2 = 2 + 3! A fancy way to state this result is to say that vector addition is commutative. Again, you can ask for the sum of any three (or more) numbers, without bothering to specify whether you are asking one to add the rst two, and then add the third to the result - or you are asking for the result obtained when you add the sum of the last two added to the rst one. The same goes for the sum of three vectors a+ b+c = a+b +c This means that you may just as well dispense with the brackets on both sides (because where you put them makes no dierence whatsoever to the nal result) and write the sum as just a + b + c. The technical term for this property is associativity - vector addition, then, is associative. Although you must know 1

CHAPTER 1. LINEAR VECTOR SPACES

both these results quiet well, you may nd it quiet instructive to prove them using, say, the parallelogram law of addition of vectors. Just as with ordinary addition you have the number zero, which can be added to anything without changing it - we have the null vector, denoted 0 - a vector with magnitude zero. Add this to any other vector, and you will get that vector back as the result. a+0=0+a=a Technically 0 is the identity element for vector addition. That this identity is unique follows from the fact that if we had 0 as another unit vector we will get 0 = 0 + 0 = 0 where the left hand equality follows from the fact that 0 is an additive identity, while the right hand one follows from the fact that 0 is also an additive identity! Another property that vector addition shares with the addition of numbers is the fact that just like every number has another (its negative) that gives the number zero when added to it, every vector has its negative. This is a vector that has the same size as the original one, but is opposite in direction. It is easy to verify that adding a vector to its negative will give rise to a null vector, which is of importance because 0 is the identity element for vector addition. We denote the negative of a vector a by the rather obvious notation a, so that we have a + (a) = (a) + a = 0 A mathematician will put this as every vector has an additive inverse. Can a vector have any other additive inverese other than its negative? The answer is - no! For if b were any other vector that has the additive inverse property b+a=0 then one could add the vector a to both sides b + a + (a) = 0 + (a) which leads to b + (a + (a)) = a where we have used the assocaitive property on the left hand side and the fact that 0 is the additive identity on the right hand side. Now, the left hand side can be further simplied to give b + 0 = b, so that we have b = a! You might be tempted to consider the proofs that the null vector is the only additive identity and that the additive inverse of a given vector is unique is a bit of a waste of time! After all, arent these results obvious? I urge you to give some thought to this. What is obvious is that the null vector is an additive identity - but can you really be sure (without the help of the proof above) that it is the only one?

CHAPTER 1. LINEAR VECTOR SPACES

Put these four properties that addition of vectors shares with that of numbers together and you will see that that they say that the set of all vectors form an abelain group under the addition of vectors. If addition is the only operation you could carry out with vectors, the story would have ended here. But just as one can multiply one number by another, we can also multiply a vector v by a number (aka scalar) m. The resulting vector, which we write as mv, is a vector whose length is |m| times that of v and which has either the same or opposite direction as v according to whether the number m is positive or negative. Of course, this means that multiplying v by the number 1 leaves it unchanged 1v = v a result that mirrors the number version 1 a = a for all numbers a. Also, we have the result (mn) a = m (na) which looks ratehr like associativity - but isnt really, the two multiplications that are on display here are quiet dierent operations - one is the multiplication of two numbers and the other is that of a vector by a number. In addition to these properties, the operations of multiplication by a scalar and vector addition is rather neatly compatible, in the sense that (m + n) v = mv + nv mu + mv

m (u + v) =

which should remind you of the distributive law a (b + c) = ab + ac that holds for numbers. Note the dierence though - in the number version we have the same addition on both sides, whereas in the rst of the two equations involving vectors, the + on the left stands for addition of numbers while that on the right for addition of vectors! I could add other properties to the list - for example, the fact that 0v = 0 for all vectors v. However, this can be shown to follow from the other properties above v + 0v = 1v + 0v = (1 + 0) v = 1v = v so that 0v is the1 additive identity - the null vector 0. Did we really need to prove that 0v is 0 in this manne? Well, yes and ... no! No - because the fact that the length of mv is dened to be |m| |v| guarantees that the vector 0v has a length of zero and hence is the null vector. On the other hand, you must realize that the proof that we have given relies only on the properties of vectors that we have noted down above - so this proof will continueto be valid, even if we
we have already shown that there is only one additive identity element for vector addition - the null vector 0!
1 Remember,

CHAPTER 1. LINEAR VECTOR SPACES

were to use an entirely dierent notion of scalar multiplication - as we will do in the next section. Again, the intuitively obvious property that the vector v is the result of multiplying the vector v by -1 also follows from the above properties: v + (1) v = 1v + (1) v = (1 + (1)) v = 0v = 0 so that (1) v is the unique vector that is the additive inverse to v - the vector v! Note that this is also a property that we could have seen directly from the denition of scalar multiplication that we are using now, but ythe proof will be valid in a more general context. Of course, addition of vectors have other properties that are quiet important too! There is no dispute whatsoever about the importance of the property that the magnitude of the vector that you get by adding two vectors a and b is given by |a| + b
2 2

+ 2 |a| b cos

where is the angle between the two vectors a and b. You can use it to calculate the length of the resultant vector - as well as to deduce the general result that this length can neither exceed the sum of the two lengths |a| and b , as well as the fact that it can not be smaller that the dierence. However we will ignore these properties and their brethren2 , but will focus, for the time being on the properties that we detailed in the preceeding paragraphs. There are very good reasons for this narrowing of focus. Firstly, there are lots of other examples of sets of objects, besides the ordinary vectors, which have the same properties if you carefully dene how to add them together and multiply them by numbers. This means that we can generalise our notions from just vectors to all sorts of other thingummies - which can, as you will soon see, be even more unlike the 3D vectors than chalk is from cheese. If we had tried to keep all the properties of 3D vectors, then onviously, we would have been left with just one example - the 3D vectors themselves! It is the deliberate narrowing of focus that gives us a vast degree of generalization! At the same time - you can also generalize too much by retaining too few of the properties that 3D vectors have. What we have outlined above is what more than a cenury of experimenting has shown us to be a proper balance - not too restrictive to throw out many interesting examples, yet not so lax that we can hardly make any useful statement about all the examples! So, just focusing on these properties and not on exactly how you have dened addition of vectors and multiplication by scalars, allow us to introduce the general notion - the linear vector space or LVS for short.
2 If the formula for the length of the resultant of two vectors is a fvourite of yours, do not lose heart! this formula will make its appearance again, in a slightly altered avataar, when we look at a special kind of vector space - the innner product space.

CHAPTER 1. LINEAR VECTOR SPACES

1.2

Linear vector spaces - denition

The basic ingredients that go into dening the abstract linear vector space is a set V of elements that we are going to call vectors. These, of course, are generalizations of the ususal 3D vectors. In addition we are going to need another set, called the set of scalars - the counetrparts of the numbers that we are going to multiply the vectors by. In its most general version, the scalars can be elements of a rather general kind of algebraic structures that mathematicians call elds. However, in physics applications we can conne our attention mostly to two elds that are very familiar to us - one is the set of all real numbers R, while the other is the set of all complex numbers3 C. So, although I am going to refer to a eld K in what follows, feel free to substitute that mentally with R or C. What else do we need to complete the denition? Firstly, we need a notion about how to add the elements that I am calling vectors now - this is a binary relation on the set of vectors. Recall that a binary relation on V is a map from V V to V - in plain English, it is a means of constructing a member of the set V from two members of this set. Secondly, we need to dene how to multiply the vectors by the scalars, a ap from K V to V . Last but not the least, we need to ensure that these denitions conform to the properties of 3D vectors that we noted down before. This means that although we may have an entirely dierent kind of vectors as well as scalars from the ones that we are used to, many results (like 0v = 0) will continue to hold because they can be proven using these properties alone. After all, this is the whole point behind this generalization from the good old 3D vectors to our new set V . Denition : A linear vector space is a tuple (V, K, +, ) where V is aset of elements called vectors, K is a eld, + : V V V is a binary relation on V and : K V V is a map that sends each pair (k, v) , k K and v V to a uniqe w V , which obeys the following properties : 1. For all v, w belonging to V we have v+w =w+v 2. For all u, v, w belonging to V we have u + (v + w) = (u + v) + w 3. There is an element in V such that +v =v+=v (1.3) (1.2) (1.1)

3 If you are too matjhematically minded, then you can object that just specifying the set does not really tell you what the eld is - you must also spell out just what the two binary operations, called addition and multiplication, are!. However, when we are talking of the eld of reals or the eld of complex numbers, the choice of the operations addition and multiplication are so obvious that we will hardly ever mention them separately!

CHAPTER 1. LINEAR VECTOR SPACES is true for all elements v of V .

4. For every element v of V , there exists an element of V denoted by v which has the property v + (v) = (v) + v = (1.4) 5. If I stands for the multiplicative identity element4 of the eld K, then we have Iv = v (1.5) for every element v of V . 6. For each pair a, b belonging to K and every v in V we have (a b) v = a (b v) (1.6)

where the a b on the left hand side denotes the muliplication operation5 of two elements of the eld K. 7. For each pair a, b belonging to K and every v in V we have (a +K b) v = a v + b v where +K denotes the addition operation6 on the eld K. 8. For every a K and every pair u, v V we have a (u + v) = a u + a v (1.8) (1.7)

A word about the notation : in the above we are not using arrows on the top of vectors - we reserve that notation for ordinary vectors. We will usually use letters from the beginning of the alphabet a, b, c, . . . to denote scalars while keeping letters from near the end u, v, w, . . . for vectors. Although we have been careful to reserve the notation and +K for multiplication and addition of scalars above - henceforth we will not be so careful. We will just use + for both scalar as well as vector addition. Again we will merely write ab for a b and av for a v. In these cases, the context will usually make it clear which operation is being meant. Simplifying notation further we will henceforth denote the multiplicative identity of the eld K I by 1 and the additive identity of K by 0 - in the two cases of interest, they really are the numbers 1 and 0 respectively, so it will not be a big deal! What may be potentially confusing (I hope not!) is that we will also denote the null vector by 0 - with the context hopefully helping us to make out which 0 is being referred to!
4 If you are not so sure just what kind of a beast is a multiplicative identity element is, dont worry - just think of the number 1 - this is the identity on the two elds R and C that we will need to worry about! 5 Once again, for the two elds we care about, this is just ordinary multiplication. 6 Once again, all you need to worry about is ordinary addition of either real or complex numbers.

CHAPTER 1. LINEAR VECTOR SPACES

Note that in the denition we have been careful - we have said that the linear vector space is a tuple (V, K, +, ). All of the four are equally necessary ingredients in the denition. However, it is common practice (and one that we will follow henceforth) that the set of vectors V is referred to as the linear vector space - especially if the choice of the eld is obvious from the context. Aso, the word linear is often dropped - since all vector spaces are linear, we know that it is there by default. So we will refer to the vector space V , instead of the linear vector space (V, K, +, ) in what follows. If the eld K is the set of real numbers R, then we call the vector space a real vector space. If K = C we have a complex vector space. Most of physics deals with real vector spaces. However, complex vector spaces comes in in a big way when we are dealing with quantum mechanics.

1.3

Linear Vector spaces - examples

From the foregoing one obvious example of a real vector space should immediately spring to mind. This is the set of all 3D vectors. After all, our general vector spaces have been modelled on it! Of course, the reason why the generalization is important at all is that there are many dierent examples of vector spaces which satisfy all the requirements - and a few are very dierent in detail from the ordinary vectors. Our rst example is so simple that you may miss that it is a vector space at a cursory glance! Consider the set of real numbers R as both the set of vectors V and the set of scalars K. Note that all the properties of a real vector space are satised by R with vector addition + and scalar multiplication being just ordinary addition and multiplication of numbers. Thus, R is the simplest example that we have of a real vector space. In the same vein, the simplest example that one can think of of a complex vector space is - no prizes for guessing this one - the set C! What can be a little bit more dicult to see at rst sight is that C can also be a real vector space. In this case, we will consider C as the set of vectors V - but will take our multiplying scalars from the set R only. It should be simple to check that all the vector space axioms hold in this case. Of course, we can not regard R as a complex vector space - multiply a real number by a complex one and the result is not a real number! Note that although our simplied notation hides it - the two Cs above are really dierent vector spaces! The rst is the space (C, C, +, )while the second is the space (C, R, +, )7 - which should tell you why I was careful with the notation while dening vector spaces in the rst place. To move onto slightly more nontrivial examples - let us consider the set of all vectors in the XY plane - in other words vectors that can be written in the form + . For addition and multiplication by scalars we retain the standard
you are really fastidious, you will note that even the two multiplications are dierent the rst one is a map : C C C, while the second is : R C C. The second one is the restriction to the subset R C of the domain C C, of the rst multiplication!
7 If

CHAPTER 1. LINEAR VECTOR SPACES

ones that we used for the 3D vectors. More precisely, the addition here is the restriction to this subset of all 3D vectors of the standard addition of vectors and so on. It is trivial to check that all vector space axioms work - after all, they are bound to since they were OK for the set of all 3D vectors. The only thing that we have to worry about is closure - is the sum of two vector in the XY plane a third vector in the same plane? Is the vector you get when you multiply a vector in the plane by a scalar in the same plane? The answers to both these questions are in the armative. This means that the restrictions to the XY plane of vector addition is a proper binary relation, and the same is true for scalar multiplication. Note that we had not said anything about closure explicitly in the vector space axioms - it was implicit in the denitions for + as a map from V V to V and for as a map from K V to V . The example above is also an example of a subspace. All the vectors in the XY plane form a subset of all 3D vectors - and it is also a vector space by itself. Similarly, the vector space R is a subspace of the vector space C. A subspace U of a vector space V is a subset U V which is a vector space in its own right. Note that in order that a vector space U be a subspace of V it is not sucient that U V - it is also important that the operations of vector addition and scalar multiplication on U be restrictions to U of the original operations on V (most of the time, we will be slightly sloppy and say that they are the same operations). It should be clear that vectors lying in any plane passing through the origin form a vector space. So does the set of all vectors lying on a line passing through the origin. Just to contrast, let us consider all unit vectors in 3D - these are all vectors of length 1. This set is not a vector space - the sum of two unit vectors is not a unit vector.The set { + : , 0} is not a vector space either multiplying an elemnet of this set by any negative number takes us out of this set and in particular no non-null vector in this set has an additive inverse (a negative). So, what do have to check to ensure that a subset U of a vector space V is actually a subspace? Of course, we have to make sure whether the restriction of the operations + and of V to the subspace U gives results that are in U closure, for short. We also have to check whether the null element of V is also in U . Again, we have to make sure whether the inverse of any element of U is also in U .