How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
If has a basis with elements and a basis with elements then ; and if has one finite basis then every basis of is finite
Statement
Let be a vector space over a field (Vector space over a field).
- If and are bases of (Basis of a vector space: a linearly independent spanning subset; and ordered basis: an injective finite list whose image is a basis) with and for (Equinumerous sets, and ), then .
- If has one finite basis (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable), then every basis of is finite.
The infinite case is not claimed. Nothing here asserts that any two infinite bases of a space are equinumerous. The Steinitz argument gives invariance only when one of the bases is finite; the infinite case rests on cardinal arithmetic, which is not available at this point in the reading order, cardinal numbers being developed much later in the library. What replaces it here is the honest substitute on the companion page: a proper linear subspace with a basis equinumerous with a basis of the whole space, which compares two specific infinite bases through an explicit bijection and assigns no dimension to either space.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field and a vector space over .
A basis of is a linearly independent subset that spans (Basis of a vector space: a linearly independent spanning subset; and ordered basis: an injective finite list whose image is a basis, Linear independence: a finite list is independent when forces every , and a subset is independent when every injective finite list into is independent, Linear combination of a finite list, and the span as the smallest linear subspace containing ).
If has a spanning subset with , then every linearly independent subset of is finite and the unique with satisfies (If has a spanning set with elements, then every linearly independent subset of is finite with at most elements; in particular has no linearly independent subset equinumerous with , which is drawn from The Steinitz exchange lemma: if is linearly independent and spans with finite of size , then is finite with , and there is of size such that spans ).
A finite set is equinumerous with exactly one natural number (The pigeonhole principle on , claim 3); is carried by bijections (Equinumerous sets, and , Injection, surjection, bijection, Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).
on is a total order, in particular antisymmetric ( is a linear order on , Order on the natural numbers, The natural numbers (von Neumann)).
Proof
Let and be bases of . Then spans and is finite of size , while is linearly independent, so is finite and the unique with satisfies . Since as well, uniqueness gives , so .
Exchanging the roles of the two bases, spans and is finite of size while is linearly independent, so the unique with satisfies ; and gives , so .
Claim 2. Let be a finite basis of , say , and let be any basis of . Then spans and is finite of size , while is linearly independent, so is finite.
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 give and , so by antisymmetry, which is claim 1; and claim 2 is step 1.3.
Remarks
-
This is the well-definedness obligation for Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension ; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis. Without claim 1 the phrase "the dimension of " would name nothing, since a space with a basis of elements might also have one of elements. Claim 2 is the companion statement that finiteness of some basis is a property of the space and not of the chosen basis.
-
Both halves come from one corollary, used twice. The only input is that an independent set cannot outnumber a finite spanning set; applying it in each direction gives the two inequalities, and antisymmetry of the order on closes the argument. Nothing here re-runs the exchange.
-
What "not available at this point in the reading order" means. The infinite invariance statement is a genuine theorem of set theory and algebra, and it is not being denied. It is simply not derivable from anything the library has established so far, since its standard proof compares cardinals; the page states what it can prove and marks the boundary rather than gesturing past it.
Depends on
- If $V$ has a spanning set with $n$ elements, then every linearly independent subset of $V$ is finite with at most $n$ elements; in particular $V$ has no linearly independent subset equinumerous with $\mathbb{N}$
- The Steinitz exchange lemma: if $L \subseteq V$ is linearly independent and $S \subseteq V$ spans $V$ with $S$ finite of size $n$, then $L$ is finite with $|L| = m \le n$, and there is $T \subseteq S$ of size $n - m$ such that $L \cup T$ spans $V$
- Basis of a vector space: a linearly independent spanning subset; and ordered basis: an injective finite list whose image is a basis
- Linear independence: a finite list $v : n \to V$ is independent when $\sum_{i<n} \lambda_i v_i = 0_V$ forces every $\lambda_i = 0_F$, and a subset $S \subseteq V$ is independent when every injective finite list into $S$ is independent
- Linear combination of a finite list, and the span $\operatorname{span}(S)$ as the smallest linear subspace containing $S$
- Vector space over a field
- Field
- Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable
- Equinumerous sets, $A \approx B$ and $A \preceq B$
- Injection, surjection, bijection
- The pigeonhole principle on $\mathbb{N}$
- The natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$ (von Neumann)
- Order on the natural numbers
- $\le$ is a linear order on $\mathbb{N}$
Used by
- {(1,0), (0,1), (1,1)} spans F² and is linearly dependent, so a spanning set need not be a basis; each of its three two-element subsets is a basis Counterexample
- Three distinct lines U₀, U₁, U₂ in F² have dim_F(U₀+U₁+U₂) = 2 while the inclusion-exclusion analogue of the dimension formula predicts 3, so the two-subspace formula does not extend Counterexample
- Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension dim_F V; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis Definition
- The dimension formula: for finite-dimensional linear subspaces U and W of V, the subspaces U + W and U ∩ W are finite-dimensional and dim_F(U+W) + dim_F(U ∩ W) = dim_F U + dim_F W Theorem
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 70 results over 26 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Dimension theorem for vector spaces (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- S. Axler, Linear Algebra Done Right, 4th ed., Ch. 2 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Sheldon Axler, Linear Algebra Done Right, 4th ed. (standard reference, not scraped)