MHB Characterization of External Direct Sum - Cooperstein, pages 359 - 360

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Direct sum Sum
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Bruce N. Coopersteins book: Advanced Linear Algebra (Second Edition) ... ...

In Section 10.2 Cooperstein writes the following, essentially about external direct sums ... ...
View attachment 5518
View attachment 5519
Cooperstein asserts that properties (a) and (b) above "characterize the space $$V$$ as the direct sum of the spaces $$V_1, \ ... \ ... \ , V_n$$."

Can someone please explain how/why properties (a) and (b) above characterize the space $$V$$ as the direct sum of the spaces $$V_1, \ ... \ ... \ , V_n$$?Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's investigate just two factors (extending this to arbitrarily finitely many isn't hard, but it takes more dots and more "index hell").

We want to show that given $V$, and two other vectors spaces $V_1,V_2$ along with four LINEAR maps:

$\pi_1:V \to V_1$
$\pi_2:V \to V_2$
$\epsilon_1:V_1 \to V$
$\epsilon_2:V_2 \to V$

such that:

$\pi_1\circ\epsilon_1 = 1_{V_1}$
$\pi_2\circ\epsilon_2 = 1_{V_2}$

and:

$\epsilon_1\circ \pi_1 + \epsilon_2\circ\pi_2 = 1_V$

that $V \cong V_1 \oplus V_2$.

So, one way we can do this is to exhibit an isomorphism:

$\phi: V \to V_1 \oplus V_2$ (Note I haven't said anything about whether or not the $V_i$ are even subspaces of $V$).

So here is how we will define $\phi$:

$\phi(v) = (\pi_1(v),\pi_2(v))$. Note this has the proper co-domain.

First, we'll show that $\phi$ is linear:

$\phi(v+v') = (\pi_1(v+v'),\pi_2(v+v')) = (\pi_1(v) + \pi_1(v'),\pi_2(v) + \pi_2(v'))$

$= (\pi_1(v),\pi_2(v)) + (\pi_1(v'),\pi_2(v')) = \phi(v) + \phi(v')$.

$\phi(av) = (\pi_1(av),\pi_2(av)) = (a\pi_1(v),a\pi_2(v)) = a(\pi_1(v),\pi_2(v)) = a\phi(v)$.

Now suppose that $\phi(v) = (0,0)$. We want to show $v = 0$.

Now $\phi(v) = (\pi_1(v),\pi_2(v))$, so if $\phi(v) = (0,0)$, we have (for this $v$):

$\pi_1(v) = 0$
$\pi_2(v) = 0$.

Since the $\epsilon_i$ are linear, we have: $\epsilon_1(0) = 0$, and $\epsilon_2(0) = 0$.

Thus $v = 1_V(v) = (\epsilon_1\circ \pi_1 + \epsilon_2\circ\pi_2)(v) = (\epsilon_1\circ \pi_1)(v) + (\epsilon_2\circ\pi_2)(v)$

$= \epsilon_1(\pi_1(v)) + \epsilon_2(\pi_2(v)) = \epsilon_1(0) + \epsilon_2(0) = 0 + 0 = 0$.

Thus $\phi$ is injective.

Before we tackle surjectivity, we prove a preliminary result:

$\pi_1 \circ \epsilon_2 = 0$
$\pi_2 \circ \epsilon_1 = 0$.

To prove this, we note that the $\pi_i$ are surjective, I will show this for $\pi_1$ (the proof is just the same for $\pi_2$):

Let $v_1 \in V_1$. Then we have $\pi_1(\epsilon_1(v_1)) = v_1$, so $v_1$ has the pre-image under $\pi_1$ of $\epsilon_1(v_1) \in V$.

Now for any $v \in V$, we have:

$v = \epsilon_1(\pi_1(v)) + \epsilon_2(\pi_2(v))$, so taking $\pi_2$ of both sides, we have:

$\pi_2(v) = \pi_2(\epsilon_1(\pi_1(v)) + \epsilon_2(\pi_2(v))) = \pi_2(\epsilon_1(\pi_1(v))) + \pi_2(\epsilon_2(\pi_2(v)))$

$= \pi_2(\epsilon_1(\pi_1(v))) + \pi_2(v)$.

Subtracting $\pi_2(v)$ from both sides, we have:

$0 = \pi_2(\epsilon_1(\pi_1(v)))$.

Now since $\pi_1$ is surjective, we can write ANY $v_1 \in V_1$ as $\pi_1(v)$ for SOME $v \in V$, so the above shows that (for such a $v$ so that $v_1 = \pi(v)$):

$0 = \pi_2(\epsilon_1(v_1))$, and thus this holds for any $v_1 \in V_1$.

The other condition is proved similarly.

Finally, let $(v_1,v_2)$ be any element of $V_1 \oplus V_2$.

Consider $\epsilon_1(v_1) + \epsilon_2(v_2) \in V$.

We have $\phi(\epsilon_1(v_1) + \epsilon_2(v_2)) = \phi(\epsilon_1(v_1)) + \phi(\epsilon_2(v_2))$

$= (\pi_1(\epsilon_1(v_1)),\pi_2(\epsilon_1(v_1))) + (\pi_1(\epsilon_2(v_2)),\pi_2(\epsilon_2(v_2)))$

$= (v_1,0) + (0,v_2) = (v_1,v_2)$, and $\phi$ is surjective.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top