Correct reasoning about direct sums proof?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar_4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Sums
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of a theorem concerning direct sums in finite-dimensional vector spaces. Participants explore the conditions under which a subspace Z can be expressed as the direct sum of the intersections of Z with two other subspaces U and W, and the implications of these conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that for Z to equal the direct sum of the intersections of Z with U and W, certain conditions must hold, including that the intersection of these intersections must be the zero vector.
  • Another participant questions the assertion that the elements of C, defined as the direct sum of the intersections, must equal the zero vector.
  • A participant acknowledges a mix-up between intersection and direct sum but maintains that the intersection of the two intersections must be the zero vector.
  • One participant argues that while the intersection being the zero vector is true, it does not imply that C must equal this intersection.
  • A later reply suggests reformulating the statement to clarify the proof approach, recommending a positive statement and considering disjunctions in the hypotheses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the conditions for Z and the nature of the direct sum. There is no consensus on whether the assertions made about the intersections and direct sums are correct or how they should be interpreted.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of direct sums and intersections, indicating a need for clarity in the proof structure and assumptions involved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners interested in linear algebra, particularly those studying vector spaces and direct sums.

quasar_4
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
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.

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. :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
quasar_4 said:
The elements of C are given as {x|x is in Z and x is in U and x is in W}={0v}.
Why?
 
well it sounded reasonable to me... if C is the set of {(Z intersects U) intersects (Z intersects W)}. So for (Z intersects U) we have the set containing {x|x is in Z and x is in U} and similarly for (Z intersects W) we have the set {x|x is in Z and x is in W}.
The direct sum would have all of these x too... wouldn't it? Although looking above it seems that I mixed up an intersection and direct sum. But even so, the intersection of the two intersections has to be the zero vector.
 
quasar_4 said:
Although looking above it seems that I mixed up an intersection and direct sum. But even so, the intersection of the two intersections has to be the zero vector.
Yes, which means your second sentence is irrelevant! So what if the intersection of those two things is {0}? C (the direct sum) will certainly contain this, but it definitely does not have to equal it.
 
quasar_4 said:
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.

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. :rolleyes:

Maybe you've already proved it. If not, here's a suggestion.

Put the statement into a form that'll shed some more light on the different options you have for proving it.
The first thing I'd do is get rid of the "unless"; then you'll have a positive statement. It'll be an implication.
Move its antecedent into your list of hypotheses (giving you more stuff to work with).
Notice the antecedent's a disjunction (which suggests one proof method).
Of course, there are other options too.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K