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

Prove that if $\{\vec{v}_1,\dots,\vec{v}_k\}$ is linearly independent, then $\{\vec{v}_1,\dots{},\vec{v}_{k-1}\}$ is also linearly independent.

My proof:

Since $\{\vec{v}_1,\dots,\vec{v}_k\}$ is linearly independent, then the equation $$c_1\vec{v}_1+\cdots+c_k\vec{v}_k=\vec{0}$$ has only the trivial solution. This then implies that $$c_1\vec{v}_1+\cdots+c_{k-1}\vec{v}_{k-1}=-c_k\vec{v}_k$$ also has only the trivial solution by basic algebra. $-c_k\vec{v}_k=0$ so $\{\vec v_1, \ldots,\vec{v}_{k-1}\}$ is also linearly independent.

Is this proof correct?

share|cite|improve this question
Needs to be tidied up - there is a curly right brace hanging around without a friend - but your main idea is right. – in_wolframAlpha_we_trust Apr 12 '13 at 13:37
@in_wolfram_we_trust: I think I just fixed that. Eric, please edit again if I misinterpreted. – Tomas Lycken Apr 12 '13 at 13:38
@in_wolfram_we_trust: Hm... well, my edit will be visible when it's peer-reviewed... but I changed it to "so $\{\vec v_1,\dots,\vec v_{k-1}\}$ is..." – Tomas Lycken Apr 12 '13 at 13:39
@EricDong Personally I think that your proof to be acceptable you must show that $c_1v_1+\ldots+c_{k-1}v_{k-1}=0$ has only the trivial solution. – user63181 Apr 12 '13 at 13:50

If we suppose that $\{\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_{k-1}\}$ is linearly dependent then there's $c_1,\ldots,c_{k-1}$ not all zero such that $$c_1\vec{v}_1+\cdots+c_{k-1}\vec{v}_{k-1}=0$$ then take $c_k=0$ and we find $$c_1\vec{v}_1+\cdots+c_k\vec{v}_k=\vec{0}$$ and this a contradiction with the fact that $\{\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_{k}\}$ is linearly independent.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is the way I'd do it, although this really shouldn't be written as a proof by contradiction - it's a proof by contrapositive. You assume the smaller set is linearly dependent and show that the larger set must also be, which is logically equivalent to "$\{v_1,\ldots, v_k\}$ linearly independent implies $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{k-1}\}$ linearly independent." – Stahl Apr 12 '13 at 13:41

Suppose $c_1\mathbf{v}_1 + \ldots + c_{k-1}\mathbf{v}_{k-1} = \mathbf{0}$. Then $c_1\mathbf{v}_1 + \ldots + c_{k-1}\mathbf{v}_{k-1} + 0\mathbf{v}_k = \mathbf{0}$. Since $\{\mathbf{v}_1, \ldots,\mathbf{v}_k\}$ are linearly independent, $c_1 = c_2 = \cdots = c_{k-1} = 0$. QED

share|cite|improve this answer

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.