If $V$ is given to be a vector space that is not finite-dimensional, it doesn't seem to be possible to exhibit an explicit non-zero linear functional on $V$ without further information about $V$. The existence of a non-zero linear functional can be shown by taking a basis of $V$ and specifying the values of the functional on the basis.
To find a basis of $V$, the axiom of choice (AC) is needed, and indeed, it was shown by Blass in 1984 that in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) it is equivalent to the axiom of choice that any vector space has a basis. However, it's not clear to me that the existence of a non-zero element of $V^*$ really needs the full strength of AC. I couldn't find a reference anywhere, so here is my question:
Consider the following statement:
(D) For any vector space $V$ that is not finite-dimensional, $V^*\neq \{0\}$.
Is (D) equivalent to AC in ZF? If not, is there some known axiom that is equivalent to (D) in ZF?
Note that this question is about the algebraic dual $V^*$. There are examples of Banach spaces, for example $\ell^\infty/c_0$, where it is possible (in the absence of the Hahn-Banach theorem, itself weaker than AC) for their topological dual to be $\{0\}$; see this answer on MO. I'm not aware of any result for the algebraic dual.
This question was inspired by, and is related to this question on MO.
Edit: Summary of the five answers so far:
-
Todd's answer + comments by François and Asaf:
in Läuchli's models of ZF there is an infinite dimensional vector space $V$ such that all proper subspaces are finite dimensional. In particular, $V$ does not have a basis and $V^*=\{0\}$. Also, according to Asaf, in these models Dependent Choice can still hold up to an arbitrarily large cardinal. -
Amit's answer + comment by François:
in Shelah's model of ZF + DC + PB (every set of real numbers is Baire), $\Bbb R$ considered as a vector space over $\Bbb Q$ has a trivial dual. -
François's answer (see also godelian's answer) + Andreas' answer
in ZF the following is equivalent to BPIT: all vector spaces over finite fields have duals large enough to separate points.
So DC is too weak, and BPT is strong enough for finite fields (and in fact equivalent to a slightly stronger statement). How far does Choice fail in Blass' model? Update: according to Asaf Karagila, $DC_{\kappa}$ can hold for arbitrarily large $\kappa$.
Best Answer
To add the proof for my claim in Todd's answer, which essentially repeats Läuchli's original [1] arguments with minor modifications (and the addition that the resulted model satisfies $DC_\kappa$).
We will show that it is consistent to have a model in which $DC_\kappa$ holds, and there is a vector space over $\mathbb F_2$ which has no linear functionals.
Assume that $M$ is a model of $ZFA+AC$ and that $A$, the set of atoms has $\lambda>\kappa$ many atoms, where $\lambda$ is a regular cardinal. Endow $A$ with a structure of a vector space over $\mathbb F=\mathbb F_2$. Now consider the permutation model $\frak M$ defined by the group of linear permutations of $A$, and by ideal of supports generated by subsets of dimension $\le\kappa$.
Denote by $\operatorname{fix}(X)$ the permutations which fix every element of $X$, by $\operatorname{sym}(X)$ the permutations that fix $X$ as a set, and by $[E]$ the span of $E$ as a subset of $A$. We say that $E\subseteq A$ is a support of $X$ if $\pi\in\operatorname{fix}(E)\Rightarrow\pi\in\operatorname{sym}(X)$.
Final word of terminology, since $A$ will play both the role of set of atoms as well the vector space, given $U\subseteq A$ the complement will always denote a set complement, whereas the direct complement will be used to refer to a linear subspace which acts as a direct summand with $U$ in a decomposition of $A$.
Claim 1: If $E$ is a subset of $A$ then $\operatorname{fix}(E)$ is the same as $\operatorname{fix}([E])$.
Proof: This is obvious since all the permutations considered are linear. $\square$
From this we can identify $E$ with its span, and since (in $M$) the $[E]$ has the same cardinality of $E$ we can conclude that without loss of generality supports are subspaces.
Claim 2: $\frak M$$\models DC_\kappa$.
Proof: Let $X$ be some nonempty set, and $\lt$ a binary relation on $X$, both in $\frak M$. In $M$ we can find a function $f\colon\kappa\to X$ which witness $DC_\kappa$ in $V$.
Since $\frak M$ is transitive, we have that $\alpha,f(\alpha)\in\frak M$ and thus $\langle\alpha,f(\alpha)\rangle\in\frak M$. Let $E_\alpha$ be a support for $\lbrace\langle\alpha,f(\alpha)\rangle\rbrace$ then $\bigcup_{\alpha<\kappa} E_\alpha$ is a set of cardinality $<\kappa^+$ and thus in our ideal of suports. It is simple to verify that this is a support of $f$, therefore $f\in\frak M$ as wanted. $\square$
Claim 3: If $x,y\in A$ are nonzero (with respect to the vector space) then in $M$ there is a linear permutation $\pi$ such that $\pi x=y$ and $\pi y=x$.
Proof: Since $x\neq y$ we have that they are linearly independent over $\mathbb F$. Since we have choice in $M$ we can extend this to a basis of $A$, and take a permutation of this basis which only switches $x$ and $y$. This permutation extends uniquely to our $\pi$.
Claim 4: If $U\subseteq A$ and $U\in\frak M$ then either $U$ is a subset of a linear subspace of dimension at most $\kappa$, or a subset of the complement of such space.
Proof: Let $E$ be a support of $U$, then every linear automorphism of $A$ which fixes $E$ preserves $U$. If $U\subseteq [E]$ then we are done, otherwise let $u\in U\setminus [E]$ and $v\in A\setminus [E]$, we can define (in $M$ where choice exists) a linear permutation $\pi$ which fixes $E$ and switches $u$ with $v$. By that we have that $\pi(U)=U$ therefore $v\in U$, and so $U=A\setminus[E]$ as wanted. $\square$
Claim 5: If $U\subseteq A$ is a linear proper subspace and $U\in\frak M$ then its dimension is at most $\kappa$.
Proof: Suppose that $U$ is a subspace of $A$ and every linearly independent subset of $U$ of cardinality $\le\kappa$ does not span $U$, we will show $A=U$. By the previous claim we have that $U$ is the complement of some "small" $[E]$.
Now let $v\in A$ and $u\in U$ both nonzero vectors. If $u+v\in U$ then $v\in U$. If $u+v\in [E]$ then $v\in U$ since otherwise $u=u+v+v\in[E]$. Therefore $v\in U$ and so $A\subseteq U$, and thus $A=U$ as wanted.$\square$
Claim 6: If $\varphi\colon A\to\mathbb F$ a linear functional then $\varphi = 0$.
Proof: Suppose not, for some $u\in A$ we have $\varphi(u)=1$, then $\varphi$ has a kernel which is of co-dimension $1$, that is a proper linear subspace and $A=\ker\varphi\oplus\lbrace 0,u\rbrace$. However by the previous claim we have that $\ker\varphi$ has dimension $\kappa$ at most, and without the axiom of choice $\kappa+1=\kappa$, thus deriving contradiction to the fact that $A$ is not spanned by $\kappa$ many vectors.
Aftermath: There was indeed some trouble in my original proof, after some extensive work in the past two days I came to a very similar idea. However with the very generous help of Theo Buehler which helped me find the original paper and translate parts, I studied Läuchli's original proof and concluded his arguments are sleek and nicer than mine.
While this cannot be transferred to $ZF$ using the Jech-Sochor embedding theorem (since $DC_\kappa$ is not a bounded statement), I am not sure that Pincus' transfer theorem won't work, or how difficult a straightforward forcing argument would be.
Lastly, the original Läuchli model is where $\lambda=\aleph_0$ and he goes on to prove that there are no non-scalar endomorphisms. In the case where we use $\mathbb F=\mathbb F_2$ and $\lambda=\aleph_0$ we have that this vector space is indeed amorphous which in turn implies that very little choice is in such universe.
Bibliography: