Loading…
Turn the basis theorems into usable tools: extend independent lists, replace old basis vectors, and compare coordinates across two bases.
A basis must generate the whole space without redundant vectors. If a subspace is described by equations, finding such a list is not immediate. If some independent vectors have already been chosen, the basis must also retain them.
Throughout, scalars are real and . Selecting vectors outside the current span produces a basis; replacing suitable vectors in an existing basis makes it possible to retain a prescribed independent list. Once two ordered bases are available, their unique coefficients determine how coordinates convert between them.
For familiar spaces such as , it is easy to write down the standard basis. For an arbitrary subspace , a basis is less obvious. The subspace might be given by equations, by a span, or by a condition such as .
Theorem 6.8.1
(Existence of a basis for subspaces of )
Every nonzero subspace of has a basis. More precisely, there are vectors
such that , the list is linearly independent, and
The proof is a controlled selection process.
Start with any nonzero vector . If every vector in is already a multiple of , then is a basis. If not, choose that is not a multiple of . Then are linearly independent.
Continue in the same way. At step , if the current list does not span , choose a new vector outside the current span. The new list stays linearly independent because the new vector was chosen not to be a linear combination of the old ones.
To justify preservation of independence, suppose a relation involving the new vector has a nonzero coefficient on it. Solving for that vector would put it in the old span, contrary to its selection. Its coefficient must therefore be zero; independence of the old list forces all remaining coefficients to vanish.
This process cannot go on forever: no more than vectors in can be linearly independent. Therefore it must stop, and when it stops the chosen vectors span . They are independent by construction, so they form a basis.
The bound used here follows directly from homogeneous systems and does not require equality of basis sizes. A matrix of vectors in has unknowns but at most pivots. A free unknown supplies a nonzero solution of the homogeneous system, hence a dependence relation. Thus selection cannot produce independent vectors. The bound controls termination; it is the stopping condition, namely that no vector of lies outside the current span, that proves spanning.
The zero subspace is the boundary case: its basis is the empty list. The empty linear combination is zero, so this list spans and has no nontrivial relation. The list containing the zero vector is dependent and is not a basis. Thus the dimension is zero, and no selection step is needed.
Worked example 6.8.2
(A basis produced by the selection idea)
Let
Choose
This one vector does not span all of , because
is not a scalar multiple of . Therefore are linearly independent.
Now every vector in can be written as
or, using our chosen list,
because . Hence span and form a basis. This also gives .
The basis-existence proof grows an independent list. The replacement theorem explains the complementary operation: insert new independent vectors into an old basis while deleting the correct old vectors.
Theorem 6.8.3
(Replacement theorem)
Let be a subspace of . Suppose
is a basis for , and suppose
are linearly independent. Then:
The proof begins with the one-vector case. Suppose is a basis and
At least one coefficient is nonzero. If , then
So the list
spans the same space as the old basis: all new vectors lie in , and the displayed expression recovers the only deleted old vector. Independence needs its own argument. Suppose
Substituting the expression for gives
Independence of the old basis implies and for every . Since , first , then every . This proves both basis conditions without appealing to an unproved counting rule. Any nonzero coefficient allows the corresponding old vector to be replaced; relabelling only simplifies notation.
The nonzero coefficient also identifies exactly which deletions are permitted. If , then already lies in the span of the old vectors other than . Deleting leaves a list unable to recover it, since the old basis is independent. Thus a nonzero new vector does not permit an arbitrary deletion. When , the argument simply says that a nonzero multiple of the single basis vector is another basis.
Suppose we have already constructed a basis consisting of and remaining old vectors, denoted . Expand the next vector in this current basis:
At least one coefficient on a remaining old vector is nonzero. Otherwise would belong to the span of , giving a nontrivial relation among the assumed independent new vectors. Apply the one-vector proof at that nonzero coefficient. It deletes , retains every previously inserted , and produces another basis of the same size. This is the invariant that permits the next step; merely knowing that some coefficient is nonzero would not protect the earlier insertions.
We have not assumed to establish the count. If , perform the first insertions. The list then spans , so is a combination of that list. This contradicts independence. Hence , and after exactly steps the surviving old vectors complete the requested basis. When , none remain. If , keep the original basis; if , then and an independent list in it must also be empty.
Worked example 6.8.4
(Two replacements that preserve the first insertion)
In , start with the standard basis and prescribe
These vectors are independent: the second and third entries of give . First replace by , since . The current basis is . To insert the second vector, express it in this current basis, rather than reusing its original standard coordinates:
The coefficient on the remaining old vector is , so replace and retain . The result is . Replacing instead would discard the first prescribed vector and fail our extension objective, even though a different valid basis could result.
Verify the final basis directly. For any ,
The three entries on the right are respectively , proving spanning. A relation gives ; its second, first, and third entries successively force . Thus the calculation verifies independence as well as recording which old vector survives.
The replacement theorem gives another proof of the equal-size result established in 6.5 Basis and dimension, with the additional construction of a basis containing any prescribed independent list.
Theorem 6.8.5
(All bases of the same finite-dimensional subspace have the same size)
If and are both bases for the same subspace , then and contain the same number of vectors.
Indeed, apply the replacement theorem twice. If has vectors and has vectors, then the independence of inside a space with basis gives . Reversing the roles gives . Therefore .
Several useful statements follow immediately.
Theorem 6.8.6
(Counting rules inside a -dimensional subspace)
Let .
For extension, the replacement construction supplies the missing old basis vectors explicitly. For reduction, start with a finite spanning list. Whenever it is dependent, solve a nontrivial relation for a vector with nonzero coefficient and delete that vector. The span stays unchanged, and the list gets shorter, so the process ends with an independent spanning list. These procedures preserve different data: extension retains the given independent vectors, while reduction selects from the given generators.
A basis as a set tells us which vectors are available. An ordered basis also fixes their order. Order matters for coordinates.
If
is an ordered basis for , then every has a unique expression
The coordinate vector of relative to is
Spanning gives existence of this expression. If two coefficient columns represented the same vector, subtracting the expressions would give a zero combination of the basis vectors. Independence forces the coefficient difference to be , proving uniqueness. Notice that has ambient entries, while has entries. They are different kinds of columns even when their lengths happen to agree.
Changing the order of the basis changes the coordinate vector, even if the underlying basis vectors are the same.
Now suppose the same nonzero -dimensional subspace has two ordered bases:
Write the basis matrices
Theorem 6.8.7
(Change-of-basis theorem)
There is a unique invertible matrix such that
The columns of are the coordinate vectors of the 's in the ordered basis . If
then the coordinate vectors satisfy
Proof
(Independence replaces cancellation by a matrix inverse)
The two basis matrices have size ; neither needs to be square. The proof uses uniqueness of coefficients each time a basis matrix must be cancelled.
Construct the columns. For each , spanning by supplies a column with . Independence makes this column unique. Assemble ; the column rule for multiplication gives .
Construct the reverse matrix. Similarly, let and . Then , so
For each standard coordinate column , the first equality implies
Independence of the columns of forces . This holds for every column, hence . The second equality and independence of the columns of likewise give . Thus . No inverse of a rectangular basis matrix was used.
Prove uniqueness and the conversion rule. If also , then each column of satisfies . Independence forces , hence , even without assuming the competing matrix invertible. Finally,
The same independence argument gives , which is the desired coordinate formula. Spanning supplied the conversion columns; independence supplied uniqueness, invertibility, and the rule for every vector.
The matrix converts the coordinate column from basis to basis while leaving the ambient vector fixed:
Because is invertible, the reverse conversion is
If , then and are square invertible matrices, and the formula becomes especially concrete:
For a proper subspace , its dimension is less than . The basis matrix is therefore not square; find each column of by solving
Worked example 6.8.8
(One plane, two coordinate columns)
Let
Let . In a relation , the first entry gives and the second then gives . Thus is a basis of . Similarly has second and third entries , so is independent. To check that these independent lists span the same plane, use both directions:
These put the in , and the following equalities put the in the span of the . Mutual inclusion of the spans proves that is also a basis of .
The vector equalities
combine into the matrix equality
Therefore
is the change-of-basis matrix from the ordered basis to the ordered basis .
For example, if
then
So
Compute the ambient vector independently in both descriptions:
The reverse equalities above give
Multiplying the displayed matrices in either order gives , checking the inverse directly. The actual vector has three entries and stays fixed; the two coordinate columns each have two entries because the plane has dimension two. This also checks the direction of conversion without relying on a memorized matrix formula.
The following sequence records the same plane example. Read how and supply the columns of , and why converts -coordinates into -coordinates while the ambient vector stays fixed.
Follow the worked plane example turn u1=v1+v2 and u2=-v1+v2 into U=VS, then use S to convert [x]_U into [x]_V without moving the vector x.
Two bases, one plane
The ordered bases U=(u1,u2) and V=(v1,v2) describe the same subspace W, so the comparison is about coordinates, not a new vector space.
Columns are recipes
The equalities u1=v1+v2 and u2=-v1+v2 become the two columns of S.
The matrix identity U=VS says every U-basis vector has been rewritten in V-basis coordinates.
Convert the coordinate column
For [x]_U=(3,2)^T, multiplying by S gives [x]_V=(1,5)^T.
The vector is unchanged
The equality 3u1+2u2=v1+5v2 describes the same x in two coordinate languages.
Use the inverse in the reverse direction
S sends U-coordinates to V-coordinates; S^{-1} sends V-coordinates back to U-coordinates.
A change-of-basis matrix does not move the vector in space. It rewrites the coordinate column from one ordered basis into another.
To convert coordinates from to :
If is square and invertible, this is just
If is not square, solve the systems directly. The solution exists and is unique because the 's form a basis for the same subspace.
The hypotheses are useful computational checks. An inconsistent column system means the proposed source vector is outside the target span. Multiple solutions mean the target columns are dependent. For two actual bases of the same subspace, neither outcome can occur, even when there are more equations than coefficient unknowns.
Common mistake
(Using the inverse direction by accident)
If , then sends -coordinates to -coordinates: . The inverse sends -coordinates back to -coordinates.
Common mistake
(Forgetting that the bases are ordered)
The ordered basis and the ordered basis give different coordinate vectors. A change-of-basis matrix compares ordered bases, not just unordered sets.
Common mistake
(Trying to invert a non-square basis matrix for a proper subspace)
If is a plane inside , a basis matrix has size , so it is not invertible as a square matrix. Solve column by column instead.
Quick check
(If , can five vectors in be linearly independent?)
Use the replacement-theorem counting rule.
No. In a 4-dimensional space, every linearly independent list has at most four vectors. Any five vectors in are linearly dependent.
Quick check
(If , which coordinate vector is equal to?)
Track the equality .
It is . Since , uniqueness of coordinates in the -basis gives .
Quick check
(Let be a basis for , and let . Which old vector can be replaced immediately by ?)
Look for a nonzero coefficient in the expression of using the old basis.
The coefficient of is , which is nonzero. Therefore
So spans the same space as . It is also independent, so can replace . The nonzero coefficients of and would also allow replacement after relabelling.
Quick check
(Use the example matrix to convert into .)
Multiply .
Compute
Thus .
This note depends on 6.5 Basis and dimension and 6.4 Linear dependence and independence.