Dimension of intersection of subspaces proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if the sum of the dimensions of two subspaces U and W, denoted as k and l respectively, exceeds the dimension of the vector space V (n), then the intersection of these subspaces, U ∩ W, must have a dimension greater than zero. Utilizing Grassmann's formula, which states that dim(U + W) = dim(U) + dim(W) - dim(U ∩ W), the proof demonstrates that assuming dim(U ∩ W) is zero leads to a contradiction, as it implies that dim(U + W) exceeds n. Therefore, the conclusion is that dim(U ∩ W) must indeed be greater than zero when k + l > n.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector spaces and their dimensions
  • Familiarity with subspaces and their properties
  • Knowledge of Grassmann's formula in linear algebra
  • Basic proof techniques in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Grassmann's formula in various contexts
  • Explore examples of vector spaces with specific dimensions
  • Learn about the properties of intersections and sums of subspaces
  • Investigate related theorems in linear algebra, such as the Dimension Theorem
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students and educators in linear algebra, mathematicians focusing on vector space theory, and anyone interested in understanding the relationships between subspaces in higher-dimensional spaces.

Dansuer
Messages
81
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


V is a vector space with dimension n, U and W are two subspaces with dimension k and l.
prove that if k+l > n then U \cap W has dimension > 0

Homework Equations


Grassmann's formula

dim(U+W) = dim(U) + dim(W) - dim(U \cap W)

The Attempt at a Solution


Suppose k+l >n.
Suppose that dim(U \cap W) \leq 0

since the dimension can't be negative dim(U \cap W) = 0

then Grassman formula reduces to

dim(U+W) = dim(U) + dim(W)
dim(U+W) = k +l > n

this is a contraddiction because U+W has dimension grater than the dimension of his enclosing space.

is this a valid proof?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What, exactly, are you trying to prove?
 
that dim(U \cap W) > 0
since you are asking me that question do i have to assume that my proof is wrong?

EDIT: ops

I have to prove that if k+l > n then dim(U \cap W) > 0
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K