Linear Algebra.

Abstract Algebra, Higher Math Textbook Problem

Axler Chapter 1
1. We have
1 a − bi a − bi a (−bi)
= = 2 2
= 2 2
+ 2 ,
a + bi (a + bi)(a − bi) a +b a +b a + b2
a (−bi)
so c = a2 +b2 and d = a2 +b2 .
√
2. The computation here easily follows, where ( −1+2 3i 3
) = 1.
3. Recall that −v is the additive inverse of v. Let −v = w. Then the additive inverse of −v = w is
−w, or −(−v). Since additive inverses are unique, as proved in Proposition 1.2, we have −w = v, or
−(−v) = v.
4. Consider the inverse of a, or a−1 , where a−1 a = 1. For a to have an inverse, a must be nonzero. Then
v = (a−1 a)v = a−1 (av) = 0. If v is nonzero, a must equal 0 by Proposition 1.4.
5. (a) This is indeed a subspace of F3 . We can make a broader generalization for the fact that
U = {(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Fn , a1 x1 + a2 x2 + · · · + an xn = 0}
is a subspace. Note that (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) = (0, 0, . . . 0) shows that 0 ∈ U . Additionally, suppose
(y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) ∈ U . Then,
a1 (x1 + y1 ) + a2 (x2 + y2 ) + · · · + an (xn + yn ) = (a1 x1 + · · · + an xn ) + (a1 y1 + · · · + an yn ) = 0 + 0 = 0,
so U is closed under addition. Lastly, for a scalar k, we have
a1 (kx1 ) + · · · + an (kxn ) = k(a1 x1 + · · · + an xn ) = k · 0 = 0
by Proposition 1.2, so U is closed under multiplication. Our proof is complete. (b) This is not a
subspace, as 0 ∈
/ U . (c) This is not a subspace, as x1 x2 x3 = 0 is not closed under addition. (d) This
is indeed a subspace of F3 .
6. Consider the subset {(x, y) ∈ Z2 }. This subset is closed under addition as the sum of any element and
any other element yields either itself or another element in the subset. This subset also contains (0, 0)
and an additive inverse for all elements. However, the multiplication of any scalar k ∈/ Z to a nonzero
element yields an element outside this subset. For example, take k = 32 : 23 · (1, 1) = ( 23 , 23 ) ∈
/ Z2 .
Therefore, this subset of R2 is not a subspace.
7. Take {(x, y) ∈ R2 , y 2 − x2 = 0}. Scalar multiplication works as (kx, ky) satisfies (ky)2 − (kx)2 =
k 2 (y 2 − x2 ) = 0. However, this subset is not closed under addition: suppose (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ) are
both in this set, from which it follows that
(y1 + y2 )2 − (x1 + x2 )2 = (y12 − x21 ) + (y22 − x22 ) + 2(y1 y2 − x1 x2 ) = 2(y1 y2 − x1 x2 )
must equal 0. This is not always true. Consider (x1 , y1 ) = (4, 4) and (x2 , y2 ) = (−1, 1), which outputs
16 instead of 0. This subset is not a subspace.

1
 8. We claim that the intersection of any collection of subspaces of V must also be a subspace of of V .
Let the subspaces be U1 , U2 , . . . , Un , and let C = |U1 ∩ U2 ∩ · · · ∩ Un |. Note that all subspaces must
have additive inverses; thus they must all contain 0. Hence 0 ∈ C. Additionally, for all elements u and
v in C, we must have u + v ∈ Ui for i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n}. It follows that u + v ∈ |U1 ∩ U2 ∩ · · · ∩ Un |, or
u + v ∈ C and C is closed under addition. The same idea can be used to verify scalar multiplication.
Naturally, C must be a subspace of V .
9. The “if” direction is a consequence of the fact that if a subspace U1 is contained in U2 , |U1 ∪ U2 | =
U2 ∈ V . To prove the “only if” direction, let C = |U1 ∪ U2 |/|U1 ∩ U2 |. For the sake of contradiction,
assume C is nonempty. Then it follows that for elements u and v in C, we must have u + v ∈ |U1 ∩ C|
or u + v ∈ |U2 ∩ C|. However, |U1 ∩ C| ∩ |U2 ∩ C| = ∅, so addition is not fixed in C — a contradiction.
Hence, U2 must be contained in U1 for the union of both subspaces to be a subspace of V .

10. We claim that U + U = U for any given subspace U of V . This follows from the fact that for each
element u1 , u2 ∈ U , u1 + u2 ∈ U . This is essentially a restatement of the closed addition corollary for
subspace U . This proves that U + U ⊂ U . The reverse direction is also true: U ⊂ U + U as u = u + 0
for any given element u ∈ U . Consequently, U + U = U .

11. The operation of addition of subspaces of V is commutative and associative. This fact holds as the
addition of subspaces is directly related to the addition of vector spaces, which are both commutative
and associative.
12. Yes, the additive identity for the addition of subspaces is {0}. To determine which subspaces have an
additive inverse, consider two subspaces U and W where each subspace is an inverse of the other, and
both are subspaces of V . Note that U + W = {0}, and it follows that since U + W ∈ {0}, U ∈ 0 and
W ∈ 0, so U = W = {0}.
13. This is false. Take U1 = (0, 0), U2 = {(x, y) ∈ R2 , 3x + 2y = 0}, and W = (x, y) ∈ R2 . This yields
U1 + W = U2 + W = R2 , but U1 ̸= U2 .
14. We are given that p(z) ∈ U where p(z) = az 2 + bz 5 . The subspace W for which U ⊕ W = P (F) is
equivalent to p(z) = c0 + c1 z + c2 z 2 + · · · + cn z n where c2 = c5 = 0. To prove U ⊕ W = P (F), we must
first verify that U + W = P (F). This is trivial, as W consists of all cm z m where m ∈ / {2, 5}, and U
consists of all cm z m for m ∈ {2, 5}, so their addition must cover all m ∈ Z.

Now we must verify that every polynomial p ∈ P (F) must be a unique sum of u ∈ U and w ∈ W . Again,
using analogous reasoning from our proof above, verifying this is trivial. For the sake of contradiction,
if c2 and/or c5 were nonzero and were not fixed constants, then there would be no unique way of
representing a + c2 or b + c5 as a sum of zero, contradicting the definition of a direct sum.
15. No, take, for instance, W = (x, 0), U1 = (0, y), and U2 = {(x, y) ∈ R2 , y = x}. In both cases,
U1 ⊕ W = U2 ⊕ W = R2 , but U1 ̸= U2 .

Introduction to Abstract Algebra (Berkeley Math 113)

Proof.
We must prove that f is a bijection by showing that it is both a injection and surjection. Note that
f ◦ g = IdT = (S → T ) → S and g ◦ f = IdS = (T → S) → T . In simpler terms, for each element
t ∈ T and s ∈ S, f (g(t)) = t and g(f (s)) = s. Since each element from t ∈ T can be mapped from
an element g(t) through f , f must be surjective. Furthermore, if there exists two elements s1 and s2
where f (s1 ) = f (s2 ), then g(f (s1 )) = g(f (s2 ) = s1 = s2 . This proves that f must be injective. Since
f is both surjective and injective, f must be bijective. □

2
2. Show that if m is prime then the product of two non-zero elements of Z/mZ is again non-zero.
Proof.
Let us solve this problem in terms of equivalence classes. Suppose there exists two nonzero elements
a and b where [a][b] = [0]m . Then it follows by Euclid’s Lemma that m|a or m|b, or [a] = 0 or [b] = 0.
This is a contradiction. Alternatively, one could use the fact that Z/mZ is an integral domain. □