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

1) what is an explicit basis for $\mathbb R$ as a $\mathbb Q$-vector space?

2) what is a basis for $\mathbb C$ as a $\mathbb C$ vector space? i think you will say $\{1\}$ is a basis since $\forall z \in \mathbb C$, $z=z*1$, but why can't we say the following: $\{1,i\}$ is a basis for $\mathbb C$ as a $\mathbb C$ vector space since $\forall z \in \mathbb C$, $z=x*1+y*i$ for some $x,y\in \mathbb R \subset \mathbb C$, i know this gives that $\{1,i\}$ is a basis for $\mathbb C$ as a $\mathbb R$ vector space but why it is not valid as a $\mathbb C$ vector space knowing that $\mathbb R \subset \mathbb C$?

share|cite|improve this question
See… – lhf Oct 27 '11 at 9:56
up vote 3 down vote accepted

1) Read about Hamel basis. I have a small hope though that there an explicit form for it.

2) The basis should be linear independent, but $i = z\cdot 1$ for $z = i\in \mathbb C$. In fact, any non-zero $z\in \mathbb C$ forms a one-component basis $\{z\}$ of the vector space $\mathbb C$ over a field $\mathbb C$.

share|cite|improve this answer

1) One can’t be given: the existence of such a basis requires the axiom of choice.

2) $\{1,i\}$ isn’t a basis for $\mathbb{C}$ over $\mathbb{C}$ because it isn’t linearly independent: $1\cdot 1+i\cdot i=0$ even though the coefficients $1$ and $i$ are non-zero.

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.