0
$\begingroup$

Given the linearly independent set $\{a_1,a_2,...,a_k\}, k\in \Bbb N$ in vector space $V$ and the vector $b\in V\setminus[\{a_1,a_2,...a_k\}]$, prove that the set $\{b,a_1,a_2,...,a_k\}$ is also linearly independent.

I don't know even where to start, should I assume the opposite, that $\{b,a_1,a_2,...,a_k\}$ is linearly dependent and then get the contradiction in the end?

If $\{b,a_1,a_2,...,a_k\}$ is linearly dependent, that means

$\alpha_0b+\alpha_1a_1+...\alpha_ka_k=0 \Rightarrow$ at least one of the scalars is not $0$.

Is this the proper way to start? If so, where do I go from here?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ With $[\dots ]$ you mean the span of $a_1,\dots,a_k$? $\endgroup$ – Alessandro Blasetti Nov 7 '16 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ @AlessandroBlasetti Yes, I think that's the span. $\endgroup$ – lmc Nov 7 '16 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ If it is the span then $b$ is linearly independent of the set. $\endgroup$ – Masacroso Nov 7 '16 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Masacroso Can you elaborate, please? $\endgroup$ – lmc Nov 7 '16 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Now_now_Draco_play_nicely the span of a set, by definition, define all the vectors that are linearly dependent of the set. Then a vector is independent of some set of vectors if and only if it dont belong to it span. $\endgroup$ – Masacroso Nov 7 '16 at 13:23
2
$\begingroup$

$$\alpha_0b+\alpha_1a_1+...\alpha_ka_k=0 \\ \alpha_1a_1+...\alpha_ka_k=-\alpha_0 b $$But $b$ is not in the span of the $a_i$, so we must have $\alpha_0=0$. The remaining $\alpha_i$ must then also be $0$ because the $a_i$ are linearly independent.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why must $\alpha_0$ be 0? $\endgroup$ – lmc Nov 7 '16 at 12:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because of all the multiples of $b$, only $0b$ is in the span of the $a_i$. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Nov 7 '16 at 12:42
3
$\begingroup$

Suppose that there is no linear independency.

Then $(\lambda,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_k)\neq(0,0,\dots,0)$ exists with: $$\lambda b+\lambda_1 a_1+\cdots+\lambda_k a_k=0$$

The assumption $\lambda=0$ leads to the conclusion that $a_1,\dots, a_k$ are not linearly independent, so must be rejected.

But the assumption $\lambda\neq0$ leads to the conclusion that $b\in[\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}]$ so must also be rejected.

A contradiction has been found now.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There is no reason to make the assumption that $(\lambda,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_k)\neq(0,0,\dots,0)$. You can just take $\lambda b+\lambda_1 a_1+\cdots+\lambda_k a_k=0$ and note that $\lambda=0$ leads to all other coefficients being $0$, while $\lambda\neq0$ leads to a contradiction with the definition of $b$. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Nov 7 '16 at 12:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Arthur The real assumption made here is the absence of linear independency. From that we conclude (not assume) that $(\lambda,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_k)\neq(0,0,\dots,0)$ exists with...This leads to an absurdity. As you have shown yourself it can also be proved more directly. $\endgroup$ – drhab Nov 7 '16 at 12:54

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.