## “A gentleman never chooses a basis.”

### Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

Around these parts, the aphorism "A gentleman never chooses a basis," has become popular.

Is there a gentlemanly way to prove that the natural map from V to V** is surjective if V is finite dimensionsal?

As in life, the exact standards for gentlemanliness are a bit vague. Some arguments seem to be implicitly pick basis. I'm hoping there's an argument which is unambigously gentlemanly.

-

6
I'm having trouble coming up with a sufficiently patriarchal argument. Does "these parts" refer to the pre-suffrage era? – S. Carnahan♦ Oct 13 2009 at 3:31

3
That's fair. I should have gone for something more gender neutral. Although "gentlemanly/ladylike" is a bit awkward, and something like "classy" doesn't have the same anachronistic feel. Any suggestions? – Richard Dore Oct 13 2009 at 18:50

8
My personal preference is to avoid any reference to gender or class (or indeed membership in any group associated to historical persecution - e.g., we don't say that bases are for Jewish or homosexual people). This may make your question seem less colorful, but I think it is worthwhile to make mathematics more welcoming to people of all kinds. If you're still looking for an obnoxious elitist tone, I suggest replacing "gentleman" with "true mathematician" and "gentlemanly" with "mathematically cultured". – S. Carnahan♦ Oct 14 2009 at 1:55

38
In my mind, "gentleman" refers to politeness rather than social class, but I can see where the problem comes from. Perhaps a good alternative is "my mommy said it's not polite to choose a basis." My mom didn't tell me that, so as a kid, I chose bases left and right; now I regret it. – Anton Geraschenko♦ Oct 14 2009 at 14:33

1
This doesn't constitute a proof, but: Suppose that the result of a certain proof looks obvious in notation A, but deep and mysterious in notation B. This is usually a reason to prefer notation A. In Penrose's abstract index notation, which doesn't require a choice of basis, mapping one-dimensional space V to V* takes element $x_a$ to element $x^a$. If you then continue with V* to V**, you take $x^a$ to (drumroll, plese) $x_a$. If the mapping from V to V** wasn't surjective (and, in fact, an isomorphism) then abstract index notation would be inconsistent. – Ben Crowell Sep 18 at 4:12
show 3 more comments

## 13 Answers

Following up on Qiaochu's query, one way of distinguishing a finite-dimensional $V$ from an infinite one is that there exists a space $W$ together with maps $e: W \otimes V \to k$, $f: k \to V \otimes W$ making the usual triangular equations hold. The data $(W, e, f)$ is uniquely determined up to canonical isomorphism, namely $W$ is canonically isomorphic to the dual of $V$; the $e$ is of course the evaluation pairing. (While it is hard to write down an explicit formula for $f: k \to V \otimes V^*$ without referring to a basis, it is nevertheless independent of basis: is the same map no matter which basis you pick, and thus canonical.) By swapping $V$ and $W$ using the symmetry of the tensor, there are maps $V \otimes W \to k$, $k \to W \otimes V$ which exhibit $V$ as the dual of $W$, hence $V$ is canonically isomorphic to the dual of its dual.

Just to be a tiny bit more explicit, the inverse to the double dual embedding $V \to V^{**}$ would be given by

$$V^{\ast\ast} \to V \otimes V^* \otimes V^{\ast\ast} \to V$$

where the description of the maps uses the data above.

-
OK, great! So you can define finite-dimensionality without mentioning bases (or chains of subspaces). The answer to the question is then easy. But this recasting of the definition of finite-dimensionality is, I think, much the most interesting thing. – Tom Leinster Oct 21 2009 at 22:54
Yes, there a number of ways one might think of characterizing finite-dimensionality (including being isomorphic to its double dual!), Noetherian/Artinian hypotheses, etc. But some of these characterizations don't port so well to modules over other commutative rings. The present characterization is equivalent to being finitely generated and projective, for any commutative ring. – Todd Trimble Oct 22 2009 at 4:15

1
When you say "isomorphic to its double dual" you presumably mean its algebraic double dual. – Andrew Stacey Nov 8 2009 at 21:26

1
Presumably Andrew means that one almost never talks about unadorned infinite-dimensional vector spaces. An analyst naturally thinks of the dual of a finite-dimensional vector space as a special case of the continuous dual of a topological vector space, and in this situation spaces are rarely isomorphic to their double duals. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 23 2009 at 15:24

2
I guess Andrew also means that, for example, Hilbert spaces <em>are</em> isomorphic to their continuous double duals. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 23 2009 at 15:26
show 1 more comment

### You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.

At the price of being too categorical for the question, one can follow up Todd's answer as follows. Consider any closed symmetric monoidal category $\mathcal{V}$ with product $\otimes$ and unit object $k$, such as vector spaces over a field $k$. Let $V$ be an object of $\mathcal{V}$ and let $DV = Hom(V,k)$. Just from formal properties of $\mathcal{V}$, there are canonical maps $\iota\colon k\to Hom(V,V)$ and $\nu\colon DV\otimes V\to Hom(V,V)$, which are the usual things for vector spaces. Say that $V$ is dualizable if there is a map $\eta\colon k\to V\otimes DV$ such that $\nu \circ \gamma \circ \eta = \iota$, where $\gamma$ is the commutativity isomorphism. Formal arguments show that $\nu$ is then an isomorphism and if $\epsilon\colon DV\otimes V \to k$ is the evaluation map (there formally), then, with $W=DV$, $\eta$ and $\epsilon$ satisfy the conditions Todd stated for $e$ and $f$. This is general enough that it can't have anything to do with bases. But restricting to vector spaces, we can choose a finite set of elements $f_i\in DV$ and $e_i\in V$ such that $\nu(\sum f_i\otimes e_i) = id$. Then it is formal that ${e_i}$ is a basis for $V$ with dual basis ${f_i}$. This proves that $V$ is finite dimensional, and the converse is clear as in Todd's answer. There is a result in Cartan-Eilenberg called the dual basis theorem that essentially points out that the precisely analogous characterization holds for finitely generated projective modules over a commutative ring $k$, with the same proof.

-
Yes, this is a nice argument, Peter. – Todd Trimble Sep 17 at 18:52

1
To be pedantic, in the case of f.g. projective modules over a commutative ring, "dual basis theorem" is a slightly unfortunate name, since neither $\{e_i\}$ or $\{f_i\}$ are necessarily bases of $V$ or $DV$. – Peter Samuelson Sep 17 at 22:54

Perhaps it would be most appropriate to answer your question with another question: how do you distinguish a finite-dimensional vector space from an infinite-dimensional one without talking about bases?

-
Every increasing (or decreasing) sequence of subspaces stabilizes in finitely many steps. – Richard Dore Oct 14 2009 at 4:57

1
Let me suggest the following strategy, then: to any chain of subspaces in V there is associated a dual chain in V*. If one can show that strict inclusions are sent to strict inclusions, then V and V* have the same dimension. – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 15 2009 at 18:22

Work in modules over a commutative unital ring R, why not.

There is a natural transformation from the identity functor to the double dual functor, Hom(Hom(-,R),R). This is described in the other comments.

This is easily verified to be an isomorphism when restricted to R. At this stage we use a basis consisting of the element 1, but that doesn't involve any choices.

Both functors commute with finite sums, so the natural transformation is an isomorphism for all finitely generated free modules.

Since isomorphisms are closed under retracts we also obtain that our map is an isomorphism for all finitely generated projectives.

-

But then you have to prove that any vector space is a free module over a field, which sounds a lot like proving the existence of a basis. By the way, why did you make this answer community wiki? – Anton Geraschenko♦ Oct 16 2009 at 16:14
I don't know what community wiki means, I just wanted people to be able to add comments. – Josh Shadlen Oct 17 2009 at 4:24
@Josh: you don't need to make your posts community wiki for people to be able to add comments. Community wiki means (1) you don't earn any reputation from the post, and (2) other people can edit it if they have 100 reputation (if it's not community wiki, they need 2000 reputation). – Anton Geraschenko♦ Oct 22 2009 at 1:10

there is a canonical map $ev:V \to V^{**}$ defined by $ev(v)(\phi) = \phi(v)$. to check that it is an isomorphism in the finite dimensional setting you can just check that it is injective and this is evident from the definition.

-

3
How do you know it's surjective though? You have to know they're the same dimension. I don't know how to prove that without getting dirty with a basis. – Richard Dore Oct 13 2009 at 18:46

Hi Qiaochu, I meant of course the canonical map between E and the bidual E**, as is clarified on the next paragraph. I have edited several times my post because of problems with latex syntax and html tags, so I have simplified the source text but some typos remain. Also I can't see why you should not use the word basis since its existence is what defines a finite dimensional vector space. I understand the question more like "we should not fix an arbitrary basis in the process of proving the theorem". You can face a similar problem if you consider stricly increasing sequences of vector spaces, because you shall not fix an arbitrary flag in the process of proving the theorem...

Best regards,

Eric

-

Some kind of solution proposal:

Let V be a n-dimensional vector space over a field (or a free R-module, where R is a commutative unital ring).

There is a morphism V tensor V* to End(V), which sends each v tensor lambda to the endomorphism of V that sends each w to lambda(w)v. It is an epimorphism since it's image are all finite rank endomorphisms, so it's surjective. It is a monomorphism as you can check by calculation. So this is an isomorphism.

We can calculate the dimensions: dim(V tensor V* ) = dim(End(V)), where dim(V tensor V* ) = dimV * dimV* and dim(End(V))=(dimV)^2. So the result is n * dimV* = n^2 and we get dimV* = n = dimV.

Now notice that every short exact sequence in our category splits. That implies for every monomorphism V to W, that W is isomorphic to a direct sum of V and W/V and therefore we have a dimension formula dimV + dim(V/W) = dim W. We get the result that every monomorphism from V to W with dimW=dimV is an isomorphism.

Look at the linear map ev : V to V**, which sends v to ev_v : (lambda mapsto lambda(v)), the evaluation-at-v-map. Now we make an induction: for dimV=0, the map ev is trivially an isomorphism. For dimV=n, the kernel of ev is a subspace, so we have V = ker(ev) + W with some complement W and either ker(ev)=V or ker(ev)=0 or the two subspaces have strictly smaller dimension. That would mean, by induction hypothesis, that their evaluation map, which is the restriction of the evaluation map of V, has no kernel and so we get ker(ev)=0. The case ker(ev)=V remains, where we get that V*=0 which contradicts n=dimV=dimV*.

Now ev is a monomorphism and dim(V**** )=dim(V* )=dim(V), therefore ev is an isomorphism. One can check easily that this is "functorial", that is: we have a natural transformation from the identity functor to the bidual functor.

One could object that I have chosen an arbitrary flag, when I take the complement of the kernel in the induction step... but I guess without that you wouldn't use the "free" property of the modules in question, and for non-free modules there are counter-examples.

If I did something wrong, please tell me.

-

1
How do you prove that dim(End(V)) = n^2 without choosing a basis? – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 23 2009 at 5:31

Hi all,

For Todd Trimble: how do you prove that a vector space V fulfilling your conditon "there exists a space W together with maps e: W \otimes V \to k, f: k \to V \otimes W making triangular equations hold" implies that V is finite dimensional?

Thanks and best regards,

Eric

-

1
Here's one way: the condition says that the functor V \otimes - is left adjoint to the functor W \otimes -. But it's also left adjoint to hom(V, -), hence we have a canonical iso W \otimes - \cong hom(V, -). In particular, hom(V, -) preserves all colimits. Now V is the union, i.e., the filtered colimit of the system of inclusions V_i \to V_j of its finite-dimensional subspaces. So hom(V, V) is the filtered colimit (union) of subspaces hom(V, V_i). In particular, the identity map 1_V must factor through one of the V_i, hence is finite-dimensional. – Todd Trimble Oct 23 2009 at 14:54

But Todd, you're defining a finite dimensional vector space using finite dimensional subspaces? I must have missed something? Rgds, Eric

-

Defining? No... you asked me to prove that the conditions I gave imply that V is finite-dimensional. So, I did. My proof shows that there exists a finite-dimensional subspace of V that contains V. It uses the fact that any vector space is the union of its finite-dimensional subspaces.  – Todd Trimble Oct 23 2009 at 23:37

Over real or complex (or other similar) field, where we know that for a finite-dimensional vector space all reasonable vector-space topologies coincide... V is dense in V** in the weak topology, hence in all topologies, but the (unique) topology is also complete, so V = V** (I think this works and avoids choosing a basis. Of course you would have to prove those other facts also without choosing a basis.)

-

I'm sorry if this should be a comment rather than answer. It is an addendum to my previous answer. I should have pointed out that, still in a general symmetric monoidal category, if $V$ is dualizable, then a formal argument also shows that the canonical map $V \to V^{**}$ (again defined formally) is an isomorphism. Also, in answer to Peter Samuelson, while the name dual basis theorem'' dates from long before my time, it does have some justification. When $\mathcal{V}$ is modules over a commutative ring $k$, if one takes a dualizable $V$ and constructs the free module $F$ on basis ${d_i}$ in 1-1 correspondence with the $e_i$ in my previous post, then $\alpha(v) = \sum f_i(v) d_i$ specifies a monomorphism $\alpha\colon V\to F$ such that $\pi\alpha = id$, where $\pi(d_i) = e_i$. This completes the proof that dualizable implies finitely generated projective, with a relevant basis in plain sight.

-

This can be added to your previous answer, if you like. – David Roberts Sep 18 at 2:57
Fine with me. I'm not adept at adding things or changing things, as I'm sure you have noticed.   Thanks. – Peter May Sep 18 at 3:39

Your question sounds interesting to me because it's one example of my "symmetry hypothesis" I have settled some years ago and that could be phrased that way:

If we can prove a theorem that involves some mathematical objects, such that the set of hypothesis is invariant under the action of a symmetry operation acting on a subset of the objects, and the set of conclusions is also symmetric for the same objects under the same symmetry, and the proof does not involve even indirectly the axiom of choice, then there exists a proof of this theorem (assimilated to a kind of graph), such that at any step of the proof any assertion is symmetric under the same above mentioned symmetry operation. Of course the first problem with this conjecture is to settle it with rigorous mathematical words, which is not yet the case, but I found a lot of examples for it, even non trivial:

Euclid algorithm: the integers you're looking for are involved in the Bezout theorem which is symmetric between the two relatively prime integers under consideration. However the algorithm is not symmetric. You arbitrarily choose one and divide by the other. However this algorithm can be symmetrized.

Fondamental theorem of algebra: if you state it as "any complex polynomials has exactly n roots", then the problem is symmetric among these roots, but how to find them all at once in a symmetric manner. This is far from being trivial but a solution exists, considering the set of all lattices in the plane and computing some winding numbers over each cell (and prooving that only finitely many of them are non zero).

Engel Theorem: any Lie algebra made of nilpotent operators is a nilpotent Lie algebra. The standard proof make use of a particular basis that is built so that all operators have an upper triangular representation in this basis... but there may be many other possible basis... Again a solution exists using a lot of quotient spaces.

Etc ... In the present example I disagree with Josh, choosing 1 on R is an arbitrary choice of a basis, you could have choosen 2 or -1... However the suggestion of Qiaochu is interesting. I'll think about that...

Best regards,

Eric Chopin

-

Hi again,

For the proposed problem I suggest the following:

Denote by C the canonical map from E to E*. The map that sends a basis of E (as a subset of Edim(E)) to its dual familly in (E)dim(E) maps a basis of E to a basis of E* (I'm not a specialist in categories but I would say it looks like a contravariant? functor when we take for the morphims the isomorphisms of E and E*). Therefore dim(E*) = dim(E) = dim(E).

Let x be in E such that f(x)=0=C(x)(f) for all f in E*
then if x is not 0, for any Hyperlane not containing x the linear form giving the component of x in the decomposition E=H oplus Kx should always give 1 when applied to x, giving a contradiction. Therefore x=0 which means that the canonical map C is injective. By the first isomorphism theorem E/Ker(C) is canonically isomorphic to Im(C), therefore Im(C) is isomorphic to E and since an isomorphism maps any basis to another basis, dim(Im(C)) = dim(E) = dim(E**) and Im(C) subset E**, therefore Im(C) = E** and we are done.

By the way, to come back to my "conjecture", another interesting example is given by the following. Suppose I have a basis e_i of a finite dimensional euclidean vector space and I want to build from it an orthonormal basis. I can use the Schmidt orthogonalization process but I must choose an arbitrary ordering in my basis, and changing this ordering changes the orthonormal basis... Is there a way to build such an orthonormal basis such that any permutation of the initial vectors is reflected by the same permutation within the computed orthonormal basis? I found an answer consisting in computing the square root of the Gram matrix of the initial basis. However I have in mind to compute this square root using a Taylor expansion of the square root, thus the computed basis is obtained only by successive approximations which is a major drawback of this algorithm compared to Schmidt orthogonalization..

Best regards,

Eric [edit: change latex supscripts to html ones]

-

2
There is no canonical map from E to E*, since the dual basis doesn't always exist. And the whole point of this exercise was not to use the word "basis." – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 22 2009 at 13:56
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 68, "mathjax_display_tex": 1, "mathjax_asciimath": 1, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 5, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9343429207801819, "perplexity_flag": "middle"}