Regarding $n$-tuples for defining points in $mathbb{R}^n$ [closed]
$begingroup$
Is there some way to prove that exactly $n$ numbers are needed to define a point in a space $mathbb{R}^n$?
Using Cartesian systems, this is intuitive for $n=2$ and $n=3$, but how can we prove it for higher dimensions?
linear-algebra
$endgroup$
closed as off-topic by David K, Paul Frost, RRL, Alexander Gruber♦ Jan 9 at 0:46
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – David K, Paul Frost, RRL, Alexander Gruber
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there some way to prove that exactly $n$ numbers are needed to define a point in a space $mathbb{R}^n$?
Using Cartesian systems, this is intuitive for $n=2$ and $n=3$, but how can we prove it for higher dimensions?
linear-algebra
$endgroup$
closed as off-topic by David K, Paul Frost, RRL, Alexander Gruber♦ Jan 9 at 0:46
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – David K, Paul Frost, RRL, Alexander Gruber
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
$begingroup$
read about basis
$endgroup$
– Sandeep Silwal
Jan 4 at 5:03
1
$begingroup$
What exactly do you mean by “a space $mathbb R^n$” here? Depending on how you do that, there might be nothing to prove. That aside, there are some basic theorems that make “dimension” a well-defined concept.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 4 at 5:08
1
$begingroup$
As far as I am concerned, the space $mathbb R^n$ is defined precisely as $underbrace{mathbb Rtimesmathbb Rtimesdotsmtimesmathbb R}_{ntext{ times}}$, which of course tells you that precisely $n$ numbers deetermine a point. Of course, to formally show that some smarter choice of representing variables won't be able to reduce the number or increase it, some linear algebra is required (in particular, the theorem that any basis of a finite dimensional vector space has the same number of vectors).
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Jan 4 at 6:10
$begingroup$
When you say space what exactly do you mean? are you referring to a Vector Space? $mathbb{R}^n$ is a set (not a space). The set can be used in a Vector Space with the addition of certain operators (scalar multiplication and vector addition).
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:10
$begingroup$
If you want someone to prove something about $mathbb R^n,$ first make sure we all know what you mean by $mathbb R^n.$ In addition to stating the formal definition, it might help to explain where you encountered $mathbb R^n$ and why you are unsure of the answer to this question. That's what we call "context" for a question on stackexchange.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there some way to prove that exactly $n$ numbers are needed to define a point in a space $mathbb{R}^n$?
Using Cartesian systems, this is intuitive for $n=2$ and $n=3$, but how can we prove it for higher dimensions?
linear-algebra
$endgroup$
Is there some way to prove that exactly $n$ numbers are needed to define a point in a space $mathbb{R}^n$?
Using Cartesian systems, this is intuitive for $n=2$ and $n=3$, but how can we prove it for higher dimensions?
linear-algebra
linear-algebra
edited Jan 4 at 5:12
Eevee Trainer
5,7781936
5,7781936
asked Jan 4 at 4:59
LeoValLeoVal
1
1
closed as off-topic by David K, Paul Frost, RRL, Alexander Gruber♦ Jan 9 at 0:46
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – David K, Paul Frost, RRL, Alexander Gruber
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by David K, Paul Frost, RRL, Alexander Gruber♦ Jan 9 at 0:46
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – David K, Paul Frost, RRL, Alexander Gruber
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
$begingroup$
read about basis
$endgroup$
– Sandeep Silwal
Jan 4 at 5:03
1
$begingroup$
What exactly do you mean by “a space $mathbb R^n$” here? Depending on how you do that, there might be nothing to prove. That aside, there are some basic theorems that make “dimension” a well-defined concept.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 4 at 5:08
1
$begingroup$
As far as I am concerned, the space $mathbb R^n$ is defined precisely as $underbrace{mathbb Rtimesmathbb Rtimesdotsmtimesmathbb R}_{ntext{ times}}$, which of course tells you that precisely $n$ numbers deetermine a point. Of course, to formally show that some smarter choice of representing variables won't be able to reduce the number or increase it, some linear algebra is required (in particular, the theorem that any basis of a finite dimensional vector space has the same number of vectors).
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Jan 4 at 6:10
$begingroup$
When you say space what exactly do you mean? are you referring to a Vector Space? $mathbb{R}^n$ is a set (not a space). The set can be used in a Vector Space with the addition of certain operators (scalar multiplication and vector addition).
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:10
$begingroup$
If you want someone to prove something about $mathbb R^n,$ first make sure we all know what you mean by $mathbb R^n.$ In addition to stating the formal definition, it might help to explain where you encountered $mathbb R^n$ and why you are unsure of the answer to this question. That's what we call "context" for a question on stackexchange.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:48
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
read about basis
$endgroup$
– Sandeep Silwal
Jan 4 at 5:03
1
$begingroup$
What exactly do you mean by “a space $mathbb R^n$” here? Depending on how you do that, there might be nothing to prove. That aside, there are some basic theorems that make “dimension” a well-defined concept.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 4 at 5:08
1
$begingroup$
As far as I am concerned, the space $mathbb R^n$ is defined precisely as $underbrace{mathbb Rtimesmathbb Rtimesdotsmtimesmathbb R}_{ntext{ times}}$, which of course tells you that precisely $n$ numbers deetermine a point. Of course, to formally show that some smarter choice of representing variables won't be able to reduce the number or increase it, some linear algebra is required (in particular, the theorem that any basis of a finite dimensional vector space has the same number of vectors).
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Jan 4 at 6:10
$begingroup$
When you say space what exactly do you mean? are you referring to a Vector Space? $mathbb{R}^n$ is a set (not a space). The set can be used in a Vector Space with the addition of certain operators (scalar multiplication and vector addition).
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:10
$begingroup$
If you want someone to prove something about $mathbb R^n,$ first make sure we all know what you mean by $mathbb R^n.$ In addition to stating the formal definition, it might help to explain where you encountered $mathbb R^n$ and why you are unsure of the answer to this question. That's what we call "context" for a question on stackexchange.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:48
2
2
$begingroup$
read about basis
$endgroup$
– Sandeep Silwal
Jan 4 at 5:03
$begingroup$
read about basis
$endgroup$
– Sandeep Silwal
Jan 4 at 5:03
1
1
$begingroup$
What exactly do you mean by “a space $mathbb R^n$” here? Depending on how you do that, there might be nothing to prove. That aside, there are some basic theorems that make “dimension” a well-defined concept.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 4 at 5:08
$begingroup$
What exactly do you mean by “a space $mathbb R^n$” here? Depending on how you do that, there might be nothing to prove. That aside, there are some basic theorems that make “dimension” a well-defined concept.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 4 at 5:08
1
1
$begingroup$
As far as I am concerned, the space $mathbb R^n$ is defined precisely as $underbrace{mathbb Rtimesmathbb Rtimesdotsmtimesmathbb R}_{ntext{ times}}$, which of course tells you that precisely $n$ numbers deetermine a point. Of course, to formally show that some smarter choice of representing variables won't be able to reduce the number or increase it, some linear algebra is required (in particular, the theorem that any basis of a finite dimensional vector space has the same number of vectors).
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Jan 4 at 6:10
$begingroup$
As far as I am concerned, the space $mathbb R^n$ is defined precisely as $underbrace{mathbb Rtimesmathbb Rtimesdotsmtimesmathbb R}_{ntext{ times}}$, which of course tells you that precisely $n$ numbers deetermine a point. Of course, to formally show that some smarter choice of representing variables won't be able to reduce the number or increase it, some linear algebra is required (in particular, the theorem that any basis of a finite dimensional vector space has the same number of vectors).
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Jan 4 at 6:10
$begingroup$
When you say space what exactly do you mean? are you referring to a Vector Space? $mathbb{R}^n$ is a set (not a space). The set can be used in a Vector Space with the addition of certain operators (scalar multiplication and vector addition).
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:10
$begingroup$
When you say space what exactly do you mean? are you referring to a Vector Space? $mathbb{R}^n$ is a set (not a space). The set can be used in a Vector Space with the addition of certain operators (scalar multiplication and vector addition).
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:10
$begingroup$
If you want someone to prove something about $mathbb R^n,$ first make sure we all know what you mean by $mathbb R^n.$ In addition to stating the formal definition, it might help to explain where you encountered $mathbb R^n$ and why you are unsure of the answer to this question. That's what we call "context" for a question on stackexchange.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:48
$begingroup$
If you want someone to prove something about $mathbb R^n,$ first make sure we all know what you mean by $mathbb R^n.$ In addition to stating the formal definition, it might help to explain where you encountered $mathbb R^n$ and why you are unsure of the answer to this question. That's what we call "context" for a question on stackexchange.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:48
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This generally follows from the fact that an $n$-dimensional vector space needs a basis set of $n$ vectors to span it. $mathbb{R}^n$ is, of course, $n$ dimensional. The related proofs can be found in any half-decent introductory text on linear algebra.
The end result is that any point in the vector space, such as the $n$-tuples in $mathbb{R}^n$ you're concerned with, can be considered as a vector, and, as that vector is in the span of the basis set, then you can write it as a linear combination of those basis vectors.
As a simple example that touches on what I mean by this, we typically we represent points in $mathbb{R}^n$ by the $n$-tuple $(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$. This can be translated as being the sum of the usual basis for $mathbb{R}^n$, which is a unit vector along each axis:
- $e_1 = (1, 0, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_2 = (0, 1, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_3 = (0, 0, 1, ..., 0)$
- $e_k = text{vector of n components, all zero except for a 1 at the k-th place}$
- $e_n = (0, 0, 0, ..., n)$
Thus, considering the $n$ tuple $(x_1, ..., x_n)$ as a vector,
$$(x_1, ..., x_n) = x_1e_1 + x_2e_2 + ... x_ne_n$$
Of course, this is just one way of presenting this $n$-tuple, dependent on this basis. Change the basis set - the $e_k$'s above - and you will need a different calculation. But since
$$dim(V) = n iff text{V's basis set requires n vectors}$$
for any vector space $V$ (here, $V = mathbb{R}^n$), then each point will always be the linear combination of $n$ vectors.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why are you using a vector to describe a tuple here? The OP speaks about an n-tuple NOT a vector. If you want to use it as you have here you must first establish that there is a direct isomorphism between the two. You have merely stated it here without proof.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:58
$begingroup$
on top of which you are using scalar multiplication and vector addition to construct a tuple.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:59
$begingroup$
$e_n$ is incorrect here too. The $nth$ element should be $1$ not $n$. Why too are you using tuple and vector notations interchangeably here? The conventional notation is $underline{e}_i$ and it should be $underline{e}_i = left[0, 0, cdots, 0, 1, 0, cdots 0right]^T$
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:03
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This generally follows from the fact that an $n$-dimensional vector space needs a basis set of $n$ vectors to span it. $mathbb{R}^n$ is, of course, $n$ dimensional. The related proofs can be found in any half-decent introductory text on linear algebra.
The end result is that any point in the vector space, such as the $n$-tuples in $mathbb{R}^n$ you're concerned with, can be considered as a vector, and, as that vector is in the span of the basis set, then you can write it as a linear combination of those basis vectors.
As a simple example that touches on what I mean by this, we typically we represent points in $mathbb{R}^n$ by the $n$-tuple $(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$. This can be translated as being the sum of the usual basis for $mathbb{R}^n$, which is a unit vector along each axis:
- $e_1 = (1, 0, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_2 = (0, 1, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_3 = (0, 0, 1, ..., 0)$
- $e_k = text{vector of n components, all zero except for a 1 at the k-th place}$
- $e_n = (0, 0, 0, ..., n)$
Thus, considering the $n$ tuple $(x_1, ..., x_n)$ as a vector,
$$(x_1, ..., x_n) = x_1e_1 + x_2e_2 + ... x_ne_n$$
Of course, this is just one way of presenting this $n$-tuple, dependent on this basis. Change the basis set - the $e_k$'s above - and you will need a different calculation. But since
$$dim(V) = n iff text{V's basis set requires n vectors}$$
for any vector space $V$ (here, $V = mathbb{R}^n$), then each point will always be the linear combination of $n$ vectors.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why are you using a vector to describe a tuple here? The OP speaks about an n-tuple NOT a vector. If you want to use it as you have here you must first establish that there is a direct isomorphism between the two. You have merely stated it here without proof.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:58
$begingroup$
on top of which you are using scalar multiplication and vector addition to construct a tuple.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:59
$begingroup$
$e_n$ is incorrect here too. The $nth$ element should be $1$ not $n$. Why too are you using tuple and vector notations interchangeably here? The conventional notation is $underline{e}_i$ and it should be $underline{e}_i = left[0, 0, cdots, 0, 1, 0, cdots 0right]^T$
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This generally follows from the fact that an $n$-dimensional vector space needs a basis set of $n$ vectors to span it. $mathbb{R}^n$ is, of course, $n$ dimensional. The related proofs can be found in any half-decent introductory text on linear algebra.
The end result is that any point in the vector space, such as the $n$-tuples in $mathbb{R}^n$ you're concerned with, can be considered as a vector, and, as that vector is in the span of the basis set, then you can write it as a linear combination of those basis vectors.
As a simple example that touches on what I mean by this, we typically we represent points in $mathbb{R}^n$ by the $n$-tuple $(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$. This can be translated as being the sum of the usual basis for $mathbb{R}^n$, which is a unit vector along each axis:
- $e_1 = (1, 0, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_2 = (0, 1, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_3 = (0, 0, 1, ..., 0)$
- $e_k = text{vector of n components, all zero except for a 1 at the k-th place}$
- $e_n = (0, 0, 0, ..., n)$
Thus, considering the $n$ tuple $(x_1, ..., x_n)$ as a vector,
$$(x_1, ..., x_n) = x_1e_1 + x_2e_2 + ... x_ne_n$$
Of course, this is just one way of presenting this $n$-tuple, dependent on this basis. Change the basis set - the $e_k$'s above - and you will need a different calculation. But since
$$dim(V) = n iff text{V's basis set requires n vectors}$$
for any vector space $V$ (here, $V = mathbb{R}^n$), then each point will always be the linear combination of $n$ vectors.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why are you using a vector to describe a tuple here? The OP speaks about an n-tuple NOT a vector. If you want to use it as you have here you must first establish that there is a direct isomorphism between the two. You have merely stated it here without proof.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:58
$begingroup$
on top of which you are using scalar multiplication and vector addition to construct a tuple.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:59
$begingroup$
$e_n$ is incorrect here too. The $nth$ element should be $1$ not $n$. Why too are you using tuple and vector notations interchangeably here? The conventional notation is $underline{e}_i$ and it should be $underline{e}_i = left[0, 0, cdots, 0, 1, 0, cdots 0right]^T$
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This generally follows from the fact that an $n$-dimensional vector space needs a basis set of $n$ vectors to span it. $mathbb{R}^n$ is, of course, $n$ dimensional. The related proofs can be found in any half-decent introductory text on linear algebra.
The end result is that any point in the vector space, such as the $n$-tuples in $mathbb{R}^n$ you're concerned with, can be considered as a vector, and, as that vector is in the span of the basis set, then you can write it as a linear combination of those basis vectors.
As a simple example that touches on what I mean by this, we typically we represent points in $mathbb{R}^n$ by the $n$-tuple $(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$. This can be translated as being the sum of the usual basis for $mathbb{R}^n$, which is a unit vector along each axis:
- $e_1 = (1, 0, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_2 = (0, 1, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_3 = (0, 0, 1, ..., 0)$
- $e_k = text{vector of n components, all zero except for a 1 at the k-th place}$
- $e_n = (0, 0, 0, ..., n)$
Thus, considering the $n$ tuple $(x_1, ..., x_n)$ as a vector,
$$(x_1, ..., x_n) = x_1e_1 + x_2e_2 + ... x_ne_n$$
Of course, this is just one way of presenting this $n$-tuple, dependent on this basis. Change the basis set - the $e_k$'s above - and you will need a different calculation. But since
$$dim(V) = n iff text{V's basis set requires n vectors}$$
for any vector space $V$ (here, $V = mathbb{R}^n$), then each point will always be the linear combination of $n$ vectors.
$endgroup$
This generally follows from the fact that an $n$-dimensional vector space needs a basis set of $n$ vectors to span it. $mathbb{R}^n$ is, of course, $n$ dimensional. The related proofs can be found in any half-decent introductory text on linear algebra.
The end result is that any point in the vector space, such as the $n$-tuples in $mathbb{R}^n$ you're concerned with, can be considered as a vector, and, as that vector is in the span of the basis set, then you can write it as a linear combination of those basis vectors.
As a simple example that touches on what I mean by this, we typically we represent points in $mathbb{R}^n$ by the $n$-tuple $(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$. This can be translated as being the sum of the usual basis for $mathbb{R}^n$, which is a unit vector along each axis:
- $e_1 = (1, 0, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_2 = (0, 1, 0, ..., 0)$
- $e_3 = (0, 0, 1, ..., 0)$
- $e_k = text{vector of n components, all zero except for a 1 at the k-th place}$
- $e_n = (0, 0, 0, ..., n)$
Thus, considering the $n$ tuple $(x_1, ..., x_n)$ as a vector,
$$(x_1, ..., x_n) = x_1e_1 + x_2e_2 + ... x_ne_n$$
Of course, this is just one way of presenting this $n$-tuple, dependent on this basis. Change the basis set - the $e_k$'s above - and you will need a different calculation. But since
$$dim(V) = n iff text{V's basis set requires n vectors}$$
for any vector space $V$ (here, $V = mathbb{R}^n$), then each point will always be the linear combination of $n$ vectors.
answered Jan 4 at 5:11
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
5,7781936
5,7781936
$begingroup$
Why are you using a vector to describe a tuple here? The OP speaks about an n-tuple NOT a vector. If you want to use it as you have here you must first establish that there is a direct isomorphism between the two. You have merely stated it here without proof.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:58
$begingroup$
on top of which you are using scalar multiplication and vector addition to construct a tuple.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:59
$begingroup$
$e_n$ is incorrect here too. The $nth$ element should be $1$ not $n$. Why too are you using tuple and vector notations interchangeably here? The conventional notation is $underline{e}_i$ and it should be $underline{e}_i = left[0, 0, cdots, 0, 1, 0, cdots 0right]^T$
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why are you using a vector to describe a tuple here? The OP speaks about an n-tuple NOT a vector. If you want to use it as you have here you must first establish that there is a direct isomorphism between the two. You have merely stated it here without proof.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:58
$begingroup$
on top of which you are using scalar multiplication and vector addition to construct a tuple.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:59
$begingroup$
$e_n$ is incorrect here too. The $nth$ element should be $1$ not $n$. Why too are you using tuple and vector notations interchangeably here? The conventional notation is $underline{e}_i$ and it should be $underline{e}_i = left[0, 0, cdots, 0, 1, 0, cdots 0right]^T$
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:03
$begingroup$
Why are you using a vector to describe a tuple here? The OP speaks about an n-tuple NOT a vector. If you want to use it as you have here you must first establish that there is a direct isomorphism between the two. You have merely stated it here without proof.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:58
$begingroup$
Why are you using a vector to describe a tuple here? The OP speaks about an n-tuple NOT a vector. If you want to use it as you have here you must first establish that there is a direct isomorphism between the two. You have merely stated it here without proof.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:58
$begingroup$
on top of which you are using scalar multiplication and vector addition to construct a tuple.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:59
$begingroup$
on top of which you are using scalar multiplication and vector addition to construct a tuple.
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 4:59
$begingroup$
$e_n$ is incorrect here too. The $nth$ element should be $1$ not $n$. Why too are you using tuple and vector notations interchangeably here? The conventional notation is $underline{e}_i$ and it should be $underline{e}_i = left[0, 0, cdots, 0, 1, 0, cdots 0right]^T$
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:03
$begingroup$
$e_n$ is incorrect here too. The $nth$ element should be $1$ not $n$. Why too are you using tuple and vector notations interchangeably here? The conventional notation is $underline{e}_i$ and it should be $underline{e}_i = left[0, 0, cdots, 0, 1, 0, cdots 0right]^T$
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:03
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
read about basis
$endgroup$
– Sandeep Silwal
Jan 4 at 5:03
1
$begingroup$
What exactly do you mean by “a space $mathbb R^n$” here? Depending on how you do that, there might be nothing to prove. That aside, there are some basic theorems that make “dimension” a well-defined concept.
$endgroup$
– amd
Jan 4 at 5:08
1
$begingroup$
As far as I am concerned, the space $mathbb R^n$ is defined precisely as $underbrace{mathbb Rtimesmathbb Rtimesdotsmtimesmathbb R}_{ntext{ times}}$, which of course tells you that precisely $n$ numbers deetermine a point. Of course, to formally show that some smarter choice of representing variables won't be able to reduce the number or increase it, some linear algebra is required (in particular, the theorem that any basis of a finite dimensional vector space has the same number of vectors).
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Jan 4 at 6:10
$begingroup$
When you say space what exactly do you mean? are you referring to a Vector Space? $mathbb{R}^n$ is a set (not a space). The set can be used in a Vector Space with the addition of certain operators (scalar multiplication and vector addition).
$endgroup$
– DavidG
Jan 8 at 5:10
$begingroup$
If you want someone to prove something about $mathbb R^n,$ first make sure we all know what you mean by $mathbb R^n.$ In addition to stating the formal definition, it might help to explain where you encountered $mathbb R^n$ and why you are unsure of the answer to this question. That's what we call "context" for a question on stackexchange.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:48