Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose that $V_1$ is a vector space over the field $K_1$ and $V_2$ is a vector space over the field $K_2$. What is the definition of an isomorphism between these two vector spaces?

My best guess would be that $K_1$ and $K_2$ have to be isomorphic as fields. Say $\xi:K_1\to K_2$ is an isomorphism. And furthermore, we must have a bijective function $\sigma:V_1 \to V_2$ with

$$\sigma(\lambda v_1 + \mu v_2) = \xi(\lambda)\sigma(v_1) + \xi(\mu)\sigma(v_2)$$ for all $v_1,v_2 \in V_1$ and all $\lambda, \mu \in K_1$.

Is this correct, or have I missed or added extra conditions?

share|cite|improve this question
It seems correct but silly to consider different but isomorphic scalar fields. – lhf Apr 25 '12 at 16:14
I have never encountered a notion of isomorphism of vector spaces over different fields. However, I agree that this is a good definition (and essentially the case you are considering does not use two different fields). Why would you want to use two different base fields? – Daan Michiels Apr 25 '12 at 16:14
Is it possible to have two vector spaces be isomorphic if their underlying fields are NOT isomorphic? – nullUser Apr 25 '12 at 16:16
No, unless you want to introduce this notion yourself. – Daan Michiels Apr 25 '12 at 16:17
@nullUser It wouldn't make any sense. One of the best properties of vector spaces is that they are classified (up to isomorphism) by their dimension, making a given vector space isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of your base field. Different base fields would give you different decompositions of your vector space...? – M Turgeon Apr 25 '12 at 16:30
up vote 3 down vote accepted

I don't really know what it means for a definition to be correct. Certainly this is a sensible definition (e.g. it defines an "equivalence relation" on the "set" of vector spaces). It is the notion of isomorphism that one gets in the following category: objects are pairs $(k, V)$ of a field and a vector space over that field, and morphisms are pairs $(\phi, T)$ of field morphisms $\phi : k_1 \to k_2$ and maps $T : V_1 \to V_2$ such that $$T(av + bw) = \phi(a) T(v) + \phi(b) T(w).$$

However, when most people talk about isomorphism of vector spaces, they almost always work implicitly with a fixed base field $k$. This means more than that $k_1, k_2$ are isomorphic; it means that we have fixed an isomorphism between them.

share|cite|improve this answer
One reason to restrict to the case of a fixed field is that it makes $k$-vector spaces into algebras (in the sense of universal algebra), with one unary operation for every scalar in the field, and the category of $k$-vector spaces into a variety (with all that this entails). – Arturo Magidin Apr 25 '12 at 16:55
@Qiaochu: The category you describe is a reasonably interesting category. It can be obtained by applying the Grothendieck construction to the strict (!) 2-functor $\textbf{Vect}(-) : \textbf{Fld}^\textrm{op} \to \mathfrak{Cat}$, and is thus a fibred category over $\textbf{Fld}$. It's a sub-fibred-category of the stack of quasicoherent sheaves over the category of schemes... – Zhen Lin Apr 25 '12 at 17:52

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.