You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Vector Space - is this right? Watch

1. Now, here's what I did:

If we look at the RHS:

So if we have

Then we have

Now, I think all of this is right. I followed the axioms, and explained which one I was using at each stage, but this person on my course is saying I'm wrong.

The thing they aren't accepting is that we can rewrite as

They won't accept that we can just assume that
But I don't see how else it can be done?

Can anyone help?

Thanks
2. (Original post by RG.)

Now, here's what I did:

If we look at the RHS:

So if we have

Then we have

Now, I think all of this is right. I followed the axioms, and explained which one I was using at each stage, but this person on my course is saying I'm wrong.

The thing they aren't accepting is that we can rewrite as

They won't accept that we can just assume that
But I don't see how else it can be done?

Can anyone help?

Thanks
Looks fine to me.
3. (Original post by Mark13)
Looks fine to me.
Thank you
4. I suspect it is possible to have a field where though I can't find an example to support it. We'd need a non-standard definition of "+". But since your question is for a general field, relying on 1+1=2 seems flawed to me.

Edit: See following.
5. (Original post by ghostwalker)
I suspect it is possible to have a field where though I can't find an example to support it. We'd need a non-standard definition of "+". But since your question is for a general field, relying on 1+1=2 seems flawed to me.
I'm just not sure how else it can be done
6. (Original post by ghostwalker)
I suspect it is possible to have a field where though I can't find an example to support it. We'd need a non-standard definition of "+". But since your question is for a general field, relying on 1+1=2 seems flawed to me.
What would you define '2' to be if not 1+1?
7. (Original post by Mark13)
What would you define '2' to be if not 1+1?
A good point.

We could have the integers in terms of successors 1,2,3,4,...
But define the "+" operation such that 1=1<>2

I'm not saying I know how to do it. But, to say 1+1=2 is saying that it can't be done.
8. (Original post by ghostwalker)
I suspect it is possible to have a field where though I can't find an example to support it. We'd need a non-standard definition of "+". But since your question is for a general field, relying on 1+1=2 seems flawed to me.
The point is that for any unital ring is by definition .

In general, if is a unital ring then there is a homomorphism

given by

and when one talks about an integer in an arbitrary ring, the convention is that we mean the image under that map.

I think what is confusing you is that you could, for example, take the real numbers and switch the symbols for 2 and 3 and then you would have a field where 1+1=3. The point is though, that the 2 in the question is referring to the identity element added to itself once, so in that case '2' would actually be 3.

This fact does hold in the generality it was stated, even for fields of characteristic 2.
9. (Original post by Mark85)
The point is that for any unital ring is by definition .

In general, if is a unital ring then there is a homomorphism

given by

and when one talks about an integer in an arbitrary ring, the convention is that we mean the image under that map.

I think what is confusing you is that you could, for example, take the real numbers and switch the symbols for 2 and 3 and then you would have a field where 1+1=3. The point is though, that the 2 in the question is referring to the identity element added to itself once, so in that case '2' would actually be 3.

This fact does hold in the generality it was stated, even for fields of characteristic 2.
I'm now more confused. I don't think I need to go into quite as much detail as that, but I typed the entire question, word for word, and so it didn't mention anything about redefining + etc. Hence I assumed it was ok to simply say that

10. (Original post by RG.)
I'm now more confused. I don't think I need to go into quite as much detail as that, but I typed the entire question, word for word, and so it didn't mention anything about redefining + etc. Hence I assumed it was ok to simply say that

Not at all. I was just addressing the other posters concern.

I was just explaining that if you take a general field and talk about '2' or '3', what you mean is the identity of that field added together that many times.

So 1+1=2 because this is the definition of what '2' means in a general field.

11. (Original post by Mark85)
...
Thanks for clearing that up. G.

(Original post by RG.)
...
Sorry for confusing you, but it really did seem flawed to me.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 16, 2013
Today on TSR

### Last-minute PS help

100s of personal statements examples here

### Loneliness at uni

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.