Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've just started a course in Representation Theory, and in solving our first homework I've used a couple of theorems about finite-dimensional vector spaces (for an example, rank-nullity theorem). My colleagues pointed out to me that we are working in general vector spaces, so I've patched up places where I've used those theorems with more general arguments.

So, why did I make that mistake? Well, in my previous linear algebra courses we mostly worked with finite-dimensional vector spaces, so in my mind I started to consider all vector spaces finite-dimensional.

To fix that, and to prevent future mishaps, I would like to see a few differences between finite-dim. and infinite-dim. vector spaces. More 'obvious' fact is in finite-dimensional space, the better.

share|improve this question
2  
All norms are equivalent. Unit ball is relatively compact. Subspaces are 'automatically' closed. –  copper.hat Oct 9 '13 at 22:02

3 Answers 3

(1). There are endomorphisms $T$ with $\ker(T)=\{0\}$ which are not surjective.

(2). Not in every case a linear form $\phi$ is representable by a vector $v$ in presence of a scalar product, i.e., there doesn't exist a vector $v$ that $\phi(.)=\langle v,.\rangle$.

(3). Not all linear mappings are continuos.

(4). You con equip a vector space with two different norms such that the unit ball in respect to the first norm in unbounded in respect to the second.

It's just a brand new world.

share|improve this answer

A finite dimensional vector space is always isomorphic to its dual, but this is false for an infinite dimensional vector space.

share|improve this answer
    
It should be mentioned that if we considered the algebraic dual, then this is always false for infinite dimensional spaces. (At least under the assumption of choice... :-)) –  Asaf Karagila Oct 10 '13 at 12:40
    
What's the counterexample? –  ante.ceperic Oct 11 '13 at 7:00

For example, not every (infinite) matrix corresponds to a linear operator.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.