The reals can be thought of as a vector space over the rationals. The properties of a vector space are that addition and "scaling" by some scalar are well defined and this certainly holds for the reals. There are many posts explaining this, examples here and here. I completely understand that the reals satisfy all the properties of vector spaces with the scalars defined as rational numbers. However, how do we know that this vector space is infinite dimensional? Isn't it just 1 dimensional? And if it is infinite dimensional, what is the first dimension? Can there not be some infinite dimensional basis for this vector space then? In the second post, @AsrafKaragila says its impossible to write such a basis by hand and we can only prove its existence. Why is it impossible?
-
11Any finite-dimensional vector space over a countable field is itself countable, but $\Bbb R$ is uncountable. – Travis Willse Sep 05 '21 at 20:45
-
7“Isn’t it just 1 dimensional?” Can you write down a basis that has a single element? – littleO Sep 05 '21 at 20:46
-
1"And if it is infinite dimensional, what is the first dimension?" What does that even mean? There is no "first dimension" of a vector space; at best, this can make sense after you've fixed a basis together with a (well-)ordering of that basis, but it's certainly not something that makes sense for the vector space as a bare object itself. It may help to observe that $\mathbb{Q}$ is a ($1$-dimensional) $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space, and we know that $\mathbb{Q}\subsetneq\mathbb{R}$, so ... – Noah Schweber Sep 05 '21 at 20:50
-
2@TravisWillse Indeed, that goes for countable-dimensional spaces as well. – Noah Schweber Sep 05 '21 at 20:50
-
Have you looked up the definition of 'dimension' for vector spaces? – Servaes Sep 05 '21 at 20:54
-
1Number of vectors in a basis? – Rohit Pandey Sep 05 '21 at 20:56
-
1@RohitPandey OK, do you have a candidate one-element basis for $\mathbb{R}$ as a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space? (Note that e.g. $\pi$ is not in the $\mathbb{Q}$-span of ${1}$ ...) – Noah Schweber Sep 05 '21 at 21:00
-
Sure, one element isn't possible, but I can express $\pi$ as an infinite sum over $\Bbb Q$. Would that be a valid basis for this space? – Rohit Pandey Sep 05 '21 at 21:08
-
4but I can express $\pi$ as an infinite sum over ${\mathbb Q}$ --- But can you express $\pi$ as a finite sum? Look at the definition of "linear combination". You'll see that only finite sums are involved. Indeed, in an arbitrary (algebraic only) vector space, there is no reasonable way to define what an infinite sum of vectors is. – Dave L. Renfro Sep 05 '21 at 21:17
-
1Take a look at the definition of "linear combination", to see if infinite sums like that are valid. – Lee Mosher Sep 05 '21 at 21:17
-
3May be the following will help you understand what is going on? Consider the following subsets of the reals: $$V_2:=\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt2)={a+b\sqrt2\mid a,b\in\Bbb{Q}},$$ this is a 2-dimensional subspace (over the rationals) of $\Bbb{R}$. The set $B_2:={1,\sqrt2}$ is a basis for it. The set $B_2$ obviously spans $V_2$, and it is linearly independent because $\sqrt2$ is irrational. – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 05 '21 at 21:36
-
2(cont'd) The set $$V_3=\Bbb{Q}(\root3\of2)={a+b\root3\of2+c\root3\of4\mid a,b,c\in\Bbb{Q}}$$ is similarly a 3-dimensional subspace. $B_3:={1,\root3\of2,\root3\of4}$ is a basis. It is linearly independent because $\root3\of2$ does not satisfy a polynomial equation with rational coefficients of degree $<3$. We can continue like this, producing higher and higher dimensional subspaces (all over $\Bbb{Q}$) of $\Bbb{R}$. – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 05 '21 at 21:37
-
3It might help to try picking bases and seeing why they don't work. If there is a one-element basis ${x}$, then every real number is equal to $\frac{p}{q}x$ for some integers $p,q$. This would imply, for example, that a ratio of any two real numbers is rational. – pancini Sep 05 '21 at 21:41
-
@JyrkiLahtonen - can you please add your comment as an answer? I have some follow up questions and it would be cleaner to ask them in the comment section of the answer. – Rohit Pandey Sep 05 '21 at 21:46
-
@ElliotG - but why can't I create an infinite dimensional basis? – Rohit Pandey Sep 05 '21 at 21:57
-
You mean an infinite basis? You can. I mean, you can’t really write it down, but it exists. – pancini Sep 05 '21 at 22:07
-
That's my question - why can't I write it down? – Rohit Pandey Sep 05 '21 at 22:08
-
4I think because there are only countably many "definable" numbers, but the basis would be uncountable. – Joe Sep 06 '21 at 03:08
6 Answers
Suppose the vector space $V=(\mathbb{R},+,\cdot)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is finite dimensional. Let $\dim V=n$. Then, since $V$ is a $n$ dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{Q}$, $V$ is isomorphic to the vector space $\mathbb{Q}^n$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. Hence there is a bijection $\phi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{Q}^n$, but it's a contradiction since $\mathbb{Q}^n$ is countable and $\mathbb{R}$ is uncountable.
- 1,027
I think your question is best answered by considering (un)countability. Recall that we call a set $M$ countable when there is some surjective function $f : \mathbb{N} \rightarrow M$, where $\mathbb{N}$ denotes the naturals. Intuitively, we can say that $f$ enumerates all of the elements of $M$ (this includes finite sets, since $f$ need not be injective). It is a well known result (see Cantor's Diagonal Argument) that $\mathbb{R}$ is not countable.
Thus, assume we have a countable set of vectors $B$ of $\mathbb{R}$. Consider the space spanned by $B$. This consists of finite linear combinations of vectors selected from a countable set, and is thus again countable (I'm not going to prove this here, but this essentially amounts to proving that the set of all finite strings over a countable set is countable, although there are many other ways to show this).
So a countable set $B$ cannot span all of $\mathbb{R}$. Thus $B$ is uncountable, and especially not finite. This should also answer your question to why we can't "write a basis down" for this; besides the fact that we can't write down infinitely many things, we can't even have a way to enumerate all the (first $n$) elements of a basis $B$ of $\mathbb{R}$, since this would amount to a surjective function $\mathbb{N} \rightarrow B$, implying that $B$ is countable.
- 689
-
the set $B$ could be countably infinite. Is the set of linear combinations of vectors selected from a countably infinite set also countable even if the number of vectors taken in the linear combination can be countably infinite? – Rohit Pandey Sep 10 '21 at 19:54
-
1@RohitPandey If you were to allow countably infinite linear combinations, you would indeed get an uncountable set. However, vector spaces don't allow infinite linear combinations (a linear combination is by definition a finite sum), since there isn't even a valid notion of infinite sums in general; thus, $B$ being countably infinite would not suffice. When we look at infinite series in $\mathbb{R}$, we are using the topological structure intensely (see the definition of infinite series as the limits of partial sums), and not every vector space necessarily has a "nice" structure like this. – tolUene Sep 11 '21 at 00:01
Since you've asked several questions, I will only address the one that says "Why can't we explicitly write out the basis?" In other words, assuming the family $\{e_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in I}$ to be such a basis, why can't we write a formula for $e_\alpha$?
The only reason we know that $e_\alpha$ exists to begin with is the Axiom Of Choice. The existence proof would not work without it. So, we are stuck with whatever the AOC gives us. But the AOC never gives a constructive answer. That's just how it is.
- 390
- 1
- 2
- 10
-
2Adding the comment that while we cannot explicitly write down a $\Bbb{Q}$-basis for $\Bbb{R}$, it is possible to describe uncountable linearly independent sets of numbers. – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 06 '21 at 11:30
Question: "However, how do we know that this vector space is infinite dimensional? Isn't it just 1 dimensional?"
Answer: An "elementary" proof that $dim_{\mathbb{Q}}(\mathbb{R}) \neq n$ for some integer $n\geq 1$: We "know" there are real numbers $x=\pi$ that are non-algebraic ($\pi$ is "known" to be non-algebraic). If $\mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ was a finite extension of fields it would follow that any real number is algebraic:
Given any $x\in \mathbb{R}$ it would follow the set
$$x,x^2,x^3,..,x^n,..$$
is a linearly dependent set of vectors over $\mathbb{Q}$. And $\pi$ does not satisfy any polynomial equation $p(\pi)=0$ with $p(t) \in \mathbb{Q}[t]$.
Question: Is there an "elementary" proof that $\pi$ is not algebraic over $\mathbb{Q}$?
- 10,015
Hint : Using Zorn's Lemma one can prove that ,
Every vector space has a basis .
So , $\mathbb{R}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ has some dimension .
Now, question is what could possibly a basis ?
The elements $\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3},\sqrt{5},\sqrt{6},.......... ,$ can be shown to be the linearly independent , but they certainly do not span $\mathbb{R}$ as we also need elements like $\pi , {\pi}^2,{\pi}^3,.......$, etc .
which also form a linearly independent set.
In fact, one can show that , the subspace of $\mathbb{R}$ generated by any countable subset of $\mathbb{R}$ must be countable .
Because $\mathbb{R}$ itself is uncountable , so no countable set can be a basis for $\mathbb{R}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$.
Hence , the dimension of $\mathbb{R}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is uncountable i,e, infinite and there is no particular way to find such type of basis in general as they contain uncountable number of element .
such type of basis are called Hamel basis.
-
To the down-voter: please leave a comment explaining the down-vote. – Rohit Pandey Sep 05 '21 at 22:09
-
Please provide additional details in your answer. As it's currently written, it's hard to understand your solution. – Community Sep 05 '21 at 22:18
We can use Baire Category theorem. $\mathbb{R}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is a complete Normed linear Space with usual normal and every complete Normed Linear Space is either finite or uncountable dimensional. If countable dimensional then consider the basis set as $B= \{v_1, v_2, v_3, \dots, \dots \}$. Then
$$\bigcup_{n \ge 1} V_n = \mathbb{R}$$
where $V_n = \mathcal{L}\{B_n\}$ where $B_n = \{v_1, \dots, v_n\}$. And each $V_n$ being finite dimensional is closed in $\mathbb{R}$ and hence is nowhere dense as it has empty interior. So, by Baire Category theorem $\mathbb{R}$ can't be complete.
- 11
- 2
-
The above proof have a slight mistake hence I added a new and short proofhere. If you can find out the mistake in the above proof please let me know. – Atrajit Sarkar Jun 12 '25 at 16:18