I really don't understand why you would say this, it's obviously false.
Setting aside the subtler point of what it means to "have" something in mathematics:
clearly only some vector spaces even have the potential to introduce an inner product. Consider F for some random finite field. You can make a vector space from it, but what would the inner product be? Or R x F for that matter, you could never give that an inner product.
That's why the concepts of "vector space" and "inner product space" are separate concepts. Some vector spaces aren't, and could never be, inner product spaces.
Re:What is the inverse of a vector?
by monktastic1 on Thursday November 04, 2021 @11:50AM
(#29108674)
Well, no, not at all.
The inner product is still there. It's still an inner product. The space in which your vectors exist is still an inner product space. You may not care about the inner product, but it doesn't cease to exist when you stop looking at it.