2
$\begingroup$

There is an R vector space where $k ⊙ x := x^k$ , $∀x, y ∈ V, k ∈ R$,

I showed that it was abelian. I wanted to show scalar multiplication by using the axioms.

  1. $α ⊙ (x ⊕ y) = α ⊙ (xy) = (xy)^α = x^αy^α = (α ⊙ x)(α ⊙ y) = (α ⊙ x) ⊕ (α ⊙ y)$.

  2. $(α + β) ⊙ x = x^{α+β} = x^αx^β = x^α ⊕ x^β = (α ⊙ x) ⊕ (β ⊙ x)$.

  3. $(αβ) ⊙ x = x^{αβ} = (x^β)^α = α ⊙ x^β = α ⊙ (β ⊙ x)$

I don't understand what these 3 axioms show? distribution? or what exactly?Could someone explain to me what these 3 represent.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you familiar with the ordinary axioms for a vector space, such as that of $\mathbb R^n$ over $\mathbb R$? Is it the concepts that you are stuck with or the notation? $\endgroup$ – Mathmo123 Aug 3 '14 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ i am familiar its just that in this notation i feel like i dont even get wher they are showing distribution or whatever else they are showing.. @Mathmo123 $\endgroup$ – user135688 Aug 3 '14 at 20:21
3
$\begingroup$

I feel like the problem with this question is that the notation is obscuring things a little.

You have a vector space with two operations:

  • Addition, which in this case is group multiplication - so $x \oplus y = x\cdot y$
  • Scalar multiplication, which in this case satisfies $k \odot \alpha = \alpha^k$

I'll talk you through the first axiom. Let me know if you need help with the others.

The first axiom is distributivity over addition - in ordinary notation it would be $\alpha (x+y) = \alpha x + \alpha y$. Here, we prove this axiom holds

$$\begin{align}\color{blue} {\alpha \odot (x \oplus y) } &\color{blue}{= \alpha\odot(x\cdot y)} \qquad\text{ - as }x \oplus y = x\cdot y\\ &\color{blue} {=(x\cdot y)^\alpha}\qquad \text{ - by our definition of }k \odot \alpha = \alpha^k\\&\color{blue} {=x^\alpha \cdot y^\alpha}\qquad\text{- since the group is abelian}\\&\color{blue} {=(\alpha \odot x)\oplus(\alpha\odot y)}\qquad\text{ - as }x \oplus y = x\cdot y\end{align}$$

Notice that we specifically needed to use the fact that the group is abelian in this proof.


Similarly, $2$ is a proof of distributivity over multiplication. Can you interpret $3$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @Mathm0123 would it be associativity over multiplication? $\endgroup$ – user135688 Aug 4 '14 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ Exactly. Does that make sense now? $\endgroup$ – Mathmo123 Aug 4 '14 at 13:28

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.