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.

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 or disprove the following; Let $V$ be a vector space and $U$ and $W$ two subspaces of $V$. If the set of vectors $\{b_1,\ldots b_n\}$ is a basis for $U\cap W$, then it is also a basis for both $U$ and $W$ themselves.

I am not even sure if this statement is true or not. I have tried to find a counter-example to disprove, which is what I feel needs to be done - but not sure.

share|cite|improve this question

It is false. The simplest counterexample is to let $V$ be any vector space of dimension $\geq1$, and let $U=\{0\}$ (the trivial subspace) and $W=V$. We have $U=U\cap W=\{0\}$ is of dimension $0$ and $W=V$ is of dimension $\geq 1$, so a basis for one cannot be a basis for the other.

More generally, if $A$ is a vector space, $B\subseteq A$ is a subspace of $A$, and $\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$ is a basis for both $A$ and $B$, then in fact $A=B$. This is because $$\{x_1,\ldots,b_n\}\text{ is a basis for }A\implies A=\text{span}(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$$ $$\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}\text{ is a basis for }B\implies B=\text{span}(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$$ hence $A=B$. Using this observation, we see that a basis for $U\cap W$ is a basis for $U$ if and only if $U=U\cap W$, and it is a basis for $W$ if and only if $W=U\cap W$, so it is a basis for both $U$ and $W$ if and only if $U=W$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Recall that a basis is a maximal linearly independent set. If we remove the hypothesis of maximality then it is not true that every vector can be written as a linear combinations of the members of such a set. For if $\beta = \left\lbrace v_1, v_2, ..., v_k \right\rbrace$ is independent and $v_{k+1}$ is another vector such that $\beta \cup \left\lbrace v_{k+1} \right\rbrace$ is independent, then if for some scalars $\lambda_{i}$ we have $$ v_{k+1} = \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i v_i $$ then would have $$ 0 = \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i v_i - v_{k+1} $$ which would be a contradiction since we assumed $\beta \cup \left\lbrace v_{k+1} \right\rbrace $ to be independent (and all the coefficients of such linear combination should be 0).

On the other hand, if a set is linearly independent in $U\cap V$ it most necessarily be independent in $V$ and $W$. The reason because the statement is FALSE is that even though it is independent it is not always maximal. And the only way it can be maximal, and thus a base, is in the way described by Zev Chonoles, that is, when both are equal.

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.