My question is not very long, but I'd like to explain where it comes from. Consider the classical definition of vector spaces:
$E$ is said to be a vector space over a field $F$ when:
- A) E is a commutative group.
- B) There is an scalar multiplication satisfying $1.x=x$ and $(\alpha\beta).x=\alpha.(\beta.x)$
- C)
- $\alpha.(x+y)= \alpha.x + \alpha.y$ (scalar multiplication distributivity)
- $(\alpha+\beta).x= \alpha.x + \beta.x $ (vector multiplication distributivity)
This is the definition that can be found in Wikipedia, or in Halmos' Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces. While reading the latter, I was rather surprised by the following disclaimer:
"These axioms are not claimed to be logically independent; they are merely a convenient characterization of the objects we wish to study."
Some rather trivial examples (setting stuff like $\alpha.x= \alpha^{2}x$) show that:
- A) and B) are not logically connected
- Neither C)1. or C)2. are implied by A) together with B)
- A), B), C)1. together do not imply C)2.
Now the tricky question is: do A), B), C)2. together imply C).1 ??
If $F=\mathbb{Q}$ the answer is yes. In a nutshell this is because $n.x = x+x+...x$ so that indeed $n.(x+y)=n.x +n.y$, and \begin{equation*} x+y=m.(m^{-1}.x+m^{-1}.y)) \end{equation*} so that $m^{-1}.(x+y)=m^{-1}.x +m^{-1}.y$. Putting both together with scalar associativity gives C)1.
What happens for general $F$ ? I have not managed to find a counter example, and have no idea how to extend the proof above.
Thanks for your help