Subsection D Dimension

This is a very simple definition, which belies its power. Grab a basis, any basis, and count up the number of vectors it contains. That is the dimension. However, this simplicity causes a problem. Given a vector space, you and I could each construct different bases — remember that a vector space might have many bases. And what if your basis and my basis had different sizes? Applying Definition D we would arrive at different numbers! With our current knowledge about vector spaces, we would have to say that dimension is not “well-defined.” Fortunately, there is a theorem that will correct this problem.

In a strictly logical progression, the next two theorems would precede the definition of dimension. Many subsequent theorems will trace their lineage back to the following fundamental result.

Notice how the swap of the two summations is so much easier in the third step above, as opposed to all the rearranging and regrouping that takes place in the previous proof. And using only about half the space. And there are no ellipses (…).

Theorem SSLD can be viewed as a generalization of Theorem MVSLD. We know that $\complex{m}$ has a basis with $m$ vectors in it (Theorem SUVB), so it is a set of $m$ vectors that spans $\complex{m}$. By Theorem SSLD, any set of more than $m$ vectors from $\complex{m}$ will be linearly dependent. But this is exactly the conclusion we have in Theorem MVSLD. Maybe this is not a total shock, as the proofs of both theorems rely heavily on Theorem HMVEI. The beauty of Theorem SSLD is that it applies in any vector space. We illustrate the generality of this theorem, and hint at its power, in the next example.

Theorem SSLD is indeed powerful, but our main purpose in proving it right now was to make sure that our definition of dimension (Definition D) is well-defined. Here is the theorem.

Theorem BIS tells us that if we find one finite basis in a vector space, then they all have the same size. This (finally) makes Definition D unambiguous.

Subsection DVS Dimension of Vector Spaces

We can now collect the dimension of some common, and not so common, vector spaces.

It is possible for a vector space to have no finite bases, in which case we say it has infinite dimension. Many of the best examples of this are vector spaces of functions, which lead to constructions like Hilbert spaces. We will focus exclusively on finite-dimensional vector spaces. OK, one infinite-dimensional example, and then we will focus exclusively on finite-dimensional vector spaces.

Subsection RNM Rank and Nullity of a Matrix

For any matrix, we have seen that we can associate several subspaces — the null space (Theorem NSMS), the column space (Theorem CSMS), row space (Theorem RSMS) and the left null space (Theorem LNSMS). As vector spaces, each of these has a dimension, and for the null space and column space, they are important enough to warrant names.

There were no accidents or coincidences in the previous example — with the row-reduced version of a matrix in hand, the rank and nullity are easy to compute.

Every archetype (Archetypes) that involves a matrix lists its rank and nullity. You may have noticed as you studied the archetypes that the larger the column space is the smaller the null space is. A simple corollary states this trade-off succinctly. (See Proof Technique LC.)

When we first introduced $r$ as our standard notation for the number of nonzero rows in a matrix in reduced row-echelon form you might have thought $r$ stood for “rows.” Not really — it stands for “rank”!

Subsection RNNM Rank and Nullity of a Nonsingular Matrix

Let us take a look at the rank and nullity of a square matrix.

The value of either the nullity or the rank are enough to characterize a nonsingular matrix.

With a new equivalence for a nonsingular matrix, we can update our list of equivalences (Theorem NME5) which now becomes a list requiring double digits to number.