MHB Determining Basis and Dimension for Vector Subspaces $U_1$ and $U_2$

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Dimension
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $U_1,U_2$ be vector subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^4$ that are defined as $$U_1=\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
3\\
2\\
2\\
1
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
3\\
3\\
2\\
1
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
2\\
1\\
2\\
1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ U_2=\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
0\\
4\\
0
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
2\\
3\\
2\\
3
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
1\\
2\\
0\\
2
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}$$

I want to determine for $U_1$, $U_2$, $U_1\cap U_2$,$ U_1+U_2$ a basis and the dimension. I have done the following:

The vectors of $U_1$ are linearly indepenendent, so a basis is the whole $U_1$ and so the dimension is $3$.

The same for $U_2$ : The vectors are linearly indepenendent, so a basis is the whole $U_2$ and so the dimension is $3$. For the intersection: Let $v\in U_1\cap U_2$ then $v\in U_1$, so $v=a(3,2,2,1)+b(3,3,2,1)+c(2,1,2,1)$ and $v\in U_2$, so $v=x(1,0,4,0)+y(2,3,2,3)+z(1,2,0,2)$.
We have that $$v-v=0 \Rightarrow a(3,2,2,1)+b(3,3,2,1)+c(2,1,2,1)-x(1,0,4,0)-y(2,3,2,3)-z(1,2,0,2)=(0,0,0,0)$$ So, we have to solve the system to find such $a,b,c,x,y,z$.
Is this correct? What about the dimension? (Wondering) For the sum we have that $\text{dim} (U_1+U_2)=\text{dim}(U_1)+\text{dim}(U_2)-\text{dim}(U_1\cap U_2)=3+3-\text{dim}(U_1\cap U_2)=6-\text{dim}(U_1\cap U_2)$, right? (Wondering)

Then to find a basis, do we take all the sums $u_1+u_2$, where $u_1\in U_1$ and $u_2\in U_2$ ? (Wondering) I want to find also vector subspace $W$ of $\mathbb{R}^4$ such that $U_1\oplus W=\mathbb{R}^4$. To find such a $W$ do we have to extend $U_1$ to a basis of $\mathbb{R}^4$ ? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Let $U_1,U_2$ be vector subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^4$ that are defined as $$U_1=\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
3\\
2\\
2\\
1
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
3\\
3\\
2\\
1
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
2\\
1\\
2\\
1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ U_2=\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
0\\
4\\
0
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
2\\
3\\
2\\
3
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
1\\
2\\
0\\
2
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}$$

I want to determine for $U_1$, $U_2$, $U_1\cap U_2$,$ U_1+U_2$ a basis and the dimension. I have done the following:

The vectors of $U_1$ are linearly indepenendent, so a basis is the whole $U_1$ and so the dimension is $3$.

The same for $U_2$ : The vectors are linearly indepenendent, so a basis is the whole $U_2$ and so the dimension is $3$. For the intersection: Let $v\in U_1\cap U_2$ then $v\in U_1$, so $v=a(3,2,2,1)+b(3,3,2,1)+c(2,1,2,1)$ and $v\in U_2$, so $v=x(1,0,4,0)+y(2,3,2,3)+z(1,2,0,2)$.
We have that $$v-v=0 \Rightarrow a(3,2,2,1)+b(3,3,2,1)+c(2,1,2,1)-x(1,0,4,0)-y(2,3,2,3)-z(1,2,0,2)=(0,0,0,0)$$ So, we have to solve the system to find such $a,b,c,x,y,z$.
Is this correct? What about the dimension? (Wondering)
What you have done is correct, but maybe not the best way to proceed. I think it would be better to look carefully at the given vectors in $U_1$ and $U_2$, to see if there is a more convenient way to describe these spaces.

What I notice is that the three basis vectors in $U_1$ all have $2$ and $1$ for their third and fourth coordinates. In $U_2$, the three vectors all have their second and fourth coordinates equal. Can you use these facts to give alternative descriptions of $U_1$ and $U_2$?
 
Opalg said:
What you have done is correct, but maybe not the best way to proceed. I think it would be better to look carefully at the given vectors in $U_1$ and $U_2$, to see if there is a more convenient way to describe these spaces.

What I notice is that the three basis vectors in $U_1$ all have $2$ and $1$ for their third and fourth coordinates. In $U_2$, the three vectors all have their second and fourth coordinates equal. Can you use these facts to give alternative descriptions of $U_1$ and $U_2$?

Can we write these maybe as follows: $$U_1=\{(x,y,2,1) \mid x, y\in \mathbb{R}, x\neq y\} , \ \ U_2=\{(x,y,z,y)\mid x,y,z\in \mathbb{R}, y\neq x,z\}$$ ? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Can we write these maybe as follows: $$U_1=\{(x,y,2,1) \mid x, y\in \mathbb{R}, x\neq y\} , \ \ U_2=\{(x,y,z,y)\mid x,y,z\in \mathbb{R}, y\neq x,z\}$$ ? (Wondering)
Nearly right. It should be $U_1=\{(x,y,2z,z) \mid x, y, z\in \mathbb{R}\} , \ \ U_2=\{(x,y,z,y)\mid x,y,z\in \mathbb{R}\}$. No need for $x$ and $y$ to be unequal. And you need the $z$ in $U_1$, otherwise it will not contain scalar multiples.
 
Opalg said:
Nearly right. It should be $U_1=\{(x,y,2z,z) \mid x, y, z\in \mathbb{R}\} , \ \ U_2=\{(x,y,z,y)\mid x,y,z\in \mathbb{R}\}$. No need for $x$ and $y$ to be unequal. And you need the $z$ in $U_1$, otherwise it will not contain scalar multiples.

Ah ok... So, we have that $$U_1=\{(x,y,2z,z) \mid x, y, z\in \mathbb{R}\}=\{x(1,0,0,0)+y(0,1,0,0)+z(0,0,2,1)\mid x, y, z\in \mathbb{R}\}$$ and $$U_2=\{(x,y,z,y)\mid x,y,z\in \mathbb{R}\}=\{x(1,0,0,0)+y(0,1,0,1)+z(0,0,1,0)\mid x,y,z\in \mathbb{R}\}$$
So, we see that a basis of $U_1$ is $\{(1,0,0,0), (0,1,0,0), (0,0,2,1)\}$ and therefore, the dimension is $3$, and a basis of $U_2$ is $\{(1,0,0,0), (0,1,0,1), (0,0,1,0)\}$ and therefore, the dimension is $3$.

Is this correct? Can we just say that these are a basis? Or do we have to prove first the linearly independence? (Wondering)
 
Knowing these bases, do we know the dimension of the intersection?

To find a basis for the intersection in the way I did in my first post, we have the following:
$$v=a(1,0,0,0)+b(0,1,0,0)+c(0,0,2,1), \ \ v=x(1,0,0,0)+y(0,1,0,1)+z(0,0,1,0)$$
$$v-v=0 \Rightarrow a(1,0,0,0)+b(0,1,0,0)+c(0,0,2,1)-x(1,0,0,0)-y(0,1,0,1)-z(0,0,1,0)=(0,0,0,0) \\ \Rightarrow a-x=0, b-y=0, 2c-z=0, c-y=0 \Rightarrow c=y=b, z=2b, x=a$$
So, choosing $a=b=1$ we get $v=(1,0,0,0)+(0,1,0,0)+(0,0,2,1)=(1,1,2,1)$, right? (Wondering)

So, is the dimension of the intersection $1$ ? Does this always hold? (Wondering) Then we have $\text{dim} (U_1+U_2)=\text{dim}(U_1)+\text{dim}(U_2)-\text{dim}(U_1\cap U_2)=3+3-1=5$.

To find a basis for the sum, do we find all the sums and check if the result is linearly independent?

So, $$(1,0,0,0)+(1,0,0,0)=(2,0,0,0), \ \ (1,0,0,0)+(0,1,0,1)=(1,1,0,1), \ \ (1,0,0,0)+(0,0,1,0)=(1,0,1,0), \\ (0,1,0,0)+(1,0,0,0)=(1,1,0,0), \ \ (0,1,0,0)+(0,1,0,1)=(0,2,0,1), \ \ (0,1,0,0)+(0,0,1,0)=(0,1,1,0), \\ (0,0,2,1)+(1,0,0,0)=(1,0,2,1), \ \ (0,0,2,1)+(0,1,0,1)=(0,1,2,2), \ \ (0,0,2,1)+(0,0,1,0)=(0,0,3,1)$$

Now we have to find $5$ linearly independent vectors, right? (Wondering)
To find a vector subspace $W$ of $\mathbb{R}^4$ such that $U_1\oplus W=\mathbb{R}^4$, do we have to extend $U_1$ to a basis of $\mathbb{R}^4$ ? (Wondering)
 
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...
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Back
Top