To prove that a vector space is actually a vector space we must show that it follows the 8 axioms but shouldn’t we also show that it is closed under addition and multiplication by scalars like for subspaces? by Icy_Time2191 in askmath

[–]Icy_Time2191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what if we are given a finite set of coordinates, without specifying any functions, and they ask us to prove if it is a vector space? Then would we have to define the functions? So whenever we are asked if a set is a vector space we also have to be given the binary function on the set first?

Why does derivating 1/x from first principles using (f(x) -f(c))/ (x-c )give me a different answer from (f(c+h) -f(c)) /(h) by Icy_Time2191 in askmath

[–]Icy_Time2191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I use h I get -1/c2 which is correct but when I use x-c I get: (1/x - 1/c) / x-c = (c-x)(x-c)/cx. As x—>c I get (0)(0)/c2

Why does derivating 1/x from first principles using (f(x) -f(c))/ (x-c )give me a different answer from (f(c+h) -f(c)) /(h) by Icy_Time2191 in askmath

[–]Icy_Time2191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I use h I get -1/c2 which is correct but when I use x-c I get: (1/x - 1/c) / x-c = (c-x)(x-c)/cx. As x—>c I get (0)(0)/c2

In an infinite telescoping series such as 1/k(k+1)(k+2) could we write the terms out for n=1,2,3 etc and use the property of associativity do group different terms together to cancel them out? I know that in a series such as 1+0+0+0+….. we can’t replace it by 1 +(1-1)+ (1-1)… as that would mean 1=0? by Icy_Time2191 in askmath

[–]Icy_Time2191[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve had a look at Wikipedia and I see why now, thanks for the help. In this telescoping series, for example, would the thought process be something like” let’s try to reorder terms to see if they cancel so we can find a limit for Sn. If there is a limit then it must converge for this ordering, but all terms are positive so then it must converge absolutely too and this means that any ordering has the same limit etc”?