
#1
Oct2111, 04:01 PM

P: 3

If we have a matrix M with a kernel, in many cases there exists a projection operator P onto the kernel of M satisfying [P,M]=0. It seems to me that this projector does not in general need to be an orthogonal projector, but it is probably unique if it exists. My question: is there a standard name for such a projector among math people?




#2
Oct2111, 06:04 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 8,998

What do you mean by "projection operator" (or "projector") if not an orthogonal projector?
If V is a finitedimensional vector space and U is a subspace of V, every x in V can be uniquely expressed as x=y+z, with y in U, and z in the orthogonal complement of U. The map [itex]x\mapsto y[/itex] is the projection operator associated with the subspace U. It's linear, selfadjoint and idempotent (P^{2}=P). Let P be any linear, selfadjoint and idempotent operator. Its range W is a subspace. So every x in V can be uniquely expressed as x=y+z, with y in W and z in the orthogonal complement. Since the decomposition is unique, and x=Px+(1P)x, we have y=Px and z=(1P)x. So P is the projection operator associated with W. This means that the two standard ways to define a projection operator are equivalent. So if you're using either of these definitions, there's only one projection operator associated with ker M. Are you using some other definition? 



#3
Oct2211, 04:20 AM

P: 3

Dear Fredrik,
Thank you for the reply. I think I was not sufficiently clear about the concept I am considering. I want to consider a linear operator M on a vector space V whose image is linearly independent from its Kernel. On a finite dimensional vector space, this implies that V = ker M + Img M. In this case, there is a unique projector P such that ker P = Img M and Img P = ker M. It can be considered the natural projector onto the kernel of M. It is not necessarily an orthogonal projectornote that I have not specified any notion of inner product on V. If the vector space is infinite dimensional, in general we do not have V = ker M +Img M. But suppose that ker M is a closed subspace of V, so there is a projection P onto the kernel of M: ker M = Img P. If we in addition require P M =0, this is a natural infinite dimensional analogue of the projection operator defined in the last paragraph. My question is twofold: 1) Is the projection operator defined above unique in the infinite dimensional case? 2) Is there a standard way to refer to this projection operator among mathematically knowledgable? Thank you! 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Kernel of Matrix  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2  
orthogonal projection into the kernel  Linear & Abstract Algebra  0  
Matrix Kernel  Calculus & Beyond Homework  6  
Matrix Image and Kernel  Calculus & Beyond Homework  4  
[SOLVED] Kernel and image of a matrix A  Calculus & Beyond Homework  4 