0
$\begingroup$

The set of all positive real numbers, with addition defined by $x + y = x * y$ and scalar multiplication defined by $c * x = x ^ c$. How is this a vector space? Doesn't the axiom stating that $(c+d)u = cu + du$ fail?

example: $u = 2$ (since two is a positive real number, it is in the set). $c = 3$ and $d = 4$ ( these two are just scalars).

$(c+d)u = (3+4)(2) = 2^7$

$cu + du = 2^3 + 2^4$, which does not equal $2^7$, so the axiom fails.

How is this a vector space if an axiom fails? Or does this axiom somehow not fail? Any help is appreciated.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ check cu + du you forgot a step $\endgroup$ – T. Fo Jan 11 '19 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ It's always a bad idea to abuse notation like this...here you, or your source, is using $x+y$ (and $xy$) in two different ways. Even the core definition seems to use $x*y$ in two different ways. Better to introduce new notation for the new operation, otherwise confusion is nearly certain. $\endgroup$ – lulu Jan 11 '19 at 14:15
  • $\begingroup$ But $cu$ and $du$ are vectors and vectors sum is $x * y$. This means that $cu+du=2^3 * 2^4=2^7$. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 11 '19 at 14:15
4
$\begingroup$

It definitely is a vector space. You seem to be getting confused about the two $+$ and two $*$ operations, as well as the fact that vectors and scalars have some overlap. It would be better to give the operations their own names:

\begin{align*} u \oplus v &= uv \\ \lambda \odot u &= u^\lambda. \end{align*}

The distributivity law that you're trying to verify is as follows:

$$(\lambda + \mu) \odot u = (\lambda \odot u) \oplus (\mu \odot u).$$

Please note the scalar $+$ and the vector $\oplus$, and where they belong. Don't forget that $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are scalars, and so they must be added by regular addition on $\mathbb{R}$.

When simplifying this rule, we get,

$$u^{\lambda + \mu} = u^\lambda \cdot u^\mu,$$

which is a well-known exponential law.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ohhh I see, yes I completely missed that and that makes sense. Thank you so much! $\endgroup$ – James Ronald Jan 11 '19 at 14:57

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.