Is the following proof correct?

Theorem. If $v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4$ is a linearly independent list then $$v_1-v_2,v_2-v_3,v_3-v_4,v_4$$ is also a linearly independent list.

Proof. Assume that $v_1,v_@,v_3,v_4$ is a linearly independent list, Consider now the following equation. $$0=0(v_1-v_2)+0(v_2-v_3)+0(v_3-v_4)+0v_4\tag{1}$$ Let $a_1,a_2,a_3$ and $a_4$ be arbitrary scalars in $\mathbf{F}$ and assume that the following equation holds $$0=a_1(v_1-v_2)+a_2(v_2-v_3)+a_3(v_3-v_4)+a_4v_4\tag{2}$$ After some algebraic manipulation we arrive at the following equation. $$0=a_1v_1+(a_2-a_1)v_2+(a_3-a_2)v_3+(a_4-a_3)v_4\tag{3}$$ Since the list $v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4$ is linearly independent it follows that given any vector in $span(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$ the choice of scalars is unique and since $$0=0v_1+0v_2+0v_3+0v_4\tag{4}$$ It follows that all the scalars in $(3)$ must be $0$, consequently the only way to produce the $0$ vector as a linear combination of the vectors in the list $v_1-v_2,v_2-v_3,v_3-v_4,v_4$ is that indicated in $(1)$.


Here $\mathbf{F}$ is either $\mathbb{C}$ or $\mathbb{R}$.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Sounds ok - would just like to point out 'Consider now the following equation.' sounds a bit strange for $(1)$. Perhaps remove that line and $(1)$ and say something along the lines 'by inspection, $(2)$ holds when all the scalars are equal to $0$' at the end of your proof $\endgroup$
    – Shuri2060
    Jul 25, 2017 at 17:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nitpicking, but you made a small typo just before your first labeled equation, where you write "Assume $v_1,v_{@},v_3,v_4$ is a linearly independent list." Did you mean $v_2$ not $v_{@}$ ? $\endgroup$ Jul 25, 2017 at 17:37

2 Answers 2


Equation (1) should be omitted: it's an obvious fact that has no consequence on the rest.

The final argument is too fast: from linear independence of $v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4$ you deduce \begin{cases} a_1=0 \\ a_2-a_1=0 \\ a_3-a_2=0 \\ a_4-a_3=0 \end{cases} and, from this, $a_1=a_2=a_3=a_4=0$. This should be mentioned, although easy.

A different approach is to consider the coordinates of the new vectors with respect to the original ones and so the matrix \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 \end{bmatrix} A standard Gaussian elimination leads to the reduced row echelon form \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} which proves that the coordinate vectors are linearly independent and so also the vectors are.

  • $\begingroup$ So your point is that i should show how each of the scalars $a_1,a_2,a_3$ and $a_4$ is 0. $\endgroup$ Jul 25, 2017 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ The original matrix is lower triangular with $1$'s in the diagonal, hence invertible. $\endgroup$
    – lhf
    Jul 25, 2017 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ @AtifFarooq Yes, that's the point; notwithstanding it's easy, it should appear in the proof. $\endgroup$
    – egreg
    Jul 25, 2017 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ @lhf That's true, but Gaussian elimination would give more information in case the vectors aren't linearly independent. $\endgroup$
    – egreg
    Jul 25, 2017 at 19:27

It's valid. A note:

Before $(2)$ when you say "...and assume that the following equation holds..." it would be better to perhaps phrase this as "We wish to solve ... for $a_j$." Saying the former means that you're assuming solutions exist - but you're not sure! This is a tiny point, and is perhaps reflected in my writing style.

We may also streamline a bit by saying the following after $(3)$.

As $\{v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4\}$ is a linearly independent set, we must have that $a_1 = 0, \ a_2-a_1=0, \ a_3 - a_2 = 0,$ and $a_4-a_3=0.$ Back substitution yields that each $a_j = 0$, and so the original set is also a linearly independent set. $\square$

Again, these are just small suggestions, but nonetheless your proof is correct.


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.