Howdy everyone. I'm not very good at writing proofs, so I am wondering if someone can tell me if I'm even on the right page with this. I am not sure if I understand the idea correctly. The theorem goes as follows: Suppose V is a finite dim. vector space with subspaces U and W such that V is the direct sum of U and W. Let Z also be a subspace of V. Then Z cannot equal the direct sums of (i) the intersection of Z and U and (ii) the intersection of Z and W unless Z is a subspace of U or W.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Here's my thoughts:

Let "C" denote the direct sum of the intersections (i) and (ii) above. Then two conditions must hold:

1) The intersection of the intersections (i) and (ii) must be the zero vector; and

2) The sum of the intersections must equal V.

The elements of C are given as {x|x is in Z and x is in U and x is in W}={0v}. Thus every x in Z that intersects U and W is in C. But we have that C={0v} since it is a direct sum. The only way that {0v}=(ZintersectU)intersect(ZintersectW) is if Z contains only the zero vector. Thus Z is the zero subspace, and it follows that Z must be a subspace of U and W.

Yeah, let me know if that's right... I'm not sure that I am correct in asserting that Z contains only the zero vector.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Correct reasoning about direct sums proof?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Correct reasoning direct | Date |
---|---|

A Is the proof of these results correct? | Jan 29, 2018 |

Am I understanding "supremum" correctly | Jan 26, 2016 |

Reduced Echelon Form - Which is correct? | Dec 21, 2015 |

A reasonable analogy for understanding similar matrices? | Dec 12, 2015 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**