2
$\begingroup$

The True/False question is:

Suppose that $v_1, v_2, v_3$ are in $\Bbb R^5$, $v_2$ is not a multiple of $v_1$, and $v_3$ is not a linear combination of $v_1$ and $v_2$. Then $\{v_1, v_2, v_3\}$ is linearly independent.

In the book it says it is a False statement, after looking in the web I found a source saying it was True. (neither of which give an explanation.

Personally I thought it was True, take $v_1$, and $v_2$, together they could span $R^2$, and if indeed $V_3$ is not in this span, all three would span $R^3$.

Is this correct or, if not why is the statement false?

Thank you

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It doesn't make sense to say that vectors in $\mathbb R^5$ span $\mathbb R^2$ or $\mathbb R^3$. $\endgroup$ – Santiago Canez Dec 24 '14 at 15:06
  • $\begingroup$ Why? I thought span was the subset of R^n generated by a set of vectors. If you are in R^3, by taking 2 vectors which are not multiples of each other, could you not span R^2 with them. That is to say, a plane inside R^3? $\endgroup$ – user115919 Dec 24 '14 at 15:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user11519 You can span a set which is isomorphic to $\Bbb R^2$ (a plane), but how can you span the set $\Bbb R^2 = \{(a_1,a_2)\mid a_i \in \Bbb R\}$ with any number of vectors $(b_1, b_2, b_3) \in \Bbb R^3$ (notice the difference in sizes)? $\endgroup$ – user137731 Dec 24 '14 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ I see, thanks a lot! $\endgroup$ – user115919 Dec 24 '14 at 18:57
5
$\begingroup$

Admittedly, this is a bit of a tricky one. The statement is false because we could have $v_1 = \vec 0$, as in the counterexample $$ v_1 = \vec 0\\ v_2 = (1,0,0,0,0)\\ v_3 = (0,1,0,0,0) $$


If we add to the statement "$v_1 \neq 0$", we would prove that it's true as follows:

suppose $c_i \in \Bbb R$ are such that $$ c_1 v_1 + c_2 v_2 + c_3 v_3 = \vec 0 $$ If $c_3 \neq 0$, then we can write $$ v_3 = -\frac{c_1}{c_3}v_1 -\frac{c_2}{c_3}v_2 $$ which is to say that $v_3$ is a linear combination of $v_1$ and $v_2$, contradicting our premise. So, $c_3 = 0$.

Now, suppose $c_2 \neq 0$. Then $$ v_2 = -\frac{c_1}{c_2} v_1 $$ which is to say that $v_2$ is a multiple of $v_1$, contradicting our premise. So, $c_2 = 0$

From here, we have $c_1 v_1 = \vec 0$. If $v_1 \neq \vec 0$, then we can conclude $c_1 = 0$.

Thus, $$ c_1 v_1 + c_2 v_2 + c_3 v_3 = \vec 0 \implies c_1 = c_2 = c_3 = 0 $$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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