3
$\begingroup$

The declaration of a field as a triplet $(\mathbb{K},\oplus,\odot)$ is canonical and in every book I've read, the definition of field is written using it. I can use this notation to describe any field in a strict and technical way. For example, this is how I can describe the finite field $\Bbb{Z}_2$:

$(\Bbb{Z}_2:=\{0,1\},\\\ \oplus:\Bbb{Z}_2^2\to\Bbb{Z}_2:=(x+y)\mod2,\\\ \odot:\Bbb{Z}_2^2\to\Bbb{Z}_2:=(x\cdot y)\mod2)$

I'm looking for a likewise technically strict way to describe a vector space over a field, since I've only found verbose specifications in common language (e.g., "a vector space $\mathbb{V}$ with operations $\oplus$ and $\odot$ over a field $\mathbb{k}$ with operations $+$ and $\cdot$").

There is any formal notation in which I can specify a vector space in few words (actually, in no words at all) as I do with fields?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's not clear to me what you're missing: if a vector space $V$ (over some specified field) has addition $\oplus$ and scalar multiplication $\odot$, then you can write it as a triple $(V,\oplus,\odot)$. What more do you want? $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey May 21 '17 at 0:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Masacroso if you understand the issue, could you clarify? What exactly is "formal" about the field definition which is missing from the usual specifications of a vector space? $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom May 21 '17 at 0:57
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Can you say what the purpose of having such a "formal specification" is? You seem to have some misunderstandings about how this notation is used (for instance, the notation you used to write the field $\mathbb{Z}_2$ is not standard), so it is difficult to tell what you really want. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey May 21 '17 at 1:03
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Masacroso I don't know which textbooks you've read. However, most textbooks that define a vector space define it as a set with operations $\oplus, \odot$ (or $+,\cdot$, whatever the notation happens to be) which satisfy the 8 axioms of a vector space. That seems like a pretty formal definition to me. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom May 21 '17 at 1:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Seninha If you are interested in formal notations and formal specifications, why not look at actual machine-checked formal specification languages such as Coq, Agda, Z, MetaMath, Isabelle/HOL, etc.? $\endgroup$ – Derek Elkins May 21 '17 at 6:35
9
$\begingroup$

I think one thing you're missing is that the term "vector space" doesn't really have a definition. What has a definition is the term "vector space over $(K,+,\cdot)$", where $(K,+,\cdot)$ is some field. So, if $(K,+,\cdot)$ is a field, then a vector space over $(K,+,\cdot)$ is defined as a triple $(V,\oplus,\odot)$ where $V$ is a set, $\oplus:V\times V\to V$, $\odot:K\times V\to V$, and a certain long list of axioms are satified. This is really a separate definition for every single field $(K,+,\cdot)$.

If you really want to have a definition of "vector space" without specifying the field beforehand (and this is not how people normally talk about vector spaces), you could define it as a tuple $(V,\oplus,\odot,K,+,\cdot)$ where $V$ and $K$ are sets, $\oplus:V\times V\to V$, $\odot:K\times V\to V$, $+:K\times K\to K$, $\cdot:K\times K\to K$, and an even longer list of axioms are satisfied.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Formally, I don't see any additional challenge (of course, it gets more verbose, because you have more things to ask).

Given a field $(\Bbb F,\oplus,\odot)$ a triple $(V,+,\cdot)$ is a $(\Bbb F,\oplus,\odot)$-vector space if and only if:

  1. $(V,+)$ is an abelian group (= verbose subdefinition)
  2. $\cdot:\Bbb F\times V\to V$ and $+:V\times V\to V$ satisfy:
    • $\forall \alpha,\beta\in\Bbb K,\forall x\in V,\ (a\odot b)\cdot v=a\cdot(b\cdot v)$ or, if you want to be more formal, $\cdot(\odot(a,b),x)=\cdot(a,\cdot(b,x))$
    • $\forall \alpha,\beta\in\Bbb K,\forall x\in V,\ (a\oplus b)\cdot x=(a\cdot x)+(b\cdot x)$ or, if you want to be more formal, $\cdot(\oplus(a,b),x)=+(\cdot(a,x),\cdot(b,x))$
    • $\forall x\in V,\ 1_{\Bbb F}\cdot x=x$
    • $\forall \alpha\in\Bbb K,\forall x,y\in V,\ \alpha\cdot(x+y)=(\alpha\cdot x)+(\beta\cdot y)$ or, if you want to be more formal, $\cdot(\alpha,+(x,y))=+(\cdot(\alpha,x),\cdot(\alpha,y))$

Typically, mathematicians (and anyone who has clear in mind what is what) swiftly adopt the big boys' notation $+:=\oplus$, $\text{nothing}:=\cdot:=\odot$, $0:=0_V$ and $0:= 0_{\Bbb F}$. This, basically because the aforementioned formal properties have the consequence of making such identifications harmless, as long as you have a way to distinguish vectors from scalars. This is acheived by noticing that, as long as multiplication by scalar acts on the left and you don't introduce a "dot product of two vectors", the only way to make sense of a "monomial" such as $abcd\in V$ is by assuming $a,b,c\in \Bbb F$ and $d\in V$, thus reading it $(a\odot b\odot c)\cdot d$. Similarly for $x(a+b)(c+d)=(x\odot(a\oplus b))\cdot (c+d)$

$\endgroup$

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.