MHB Equivalence of Subspace Statements

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

Let $V$ be a $\mathbb{R}$-vector space, let $x,y\in V$ and let $U,W\leq_{\mathbb{R}}V$ be subspaces of $V$.
Show that :
(a) If $(x+U)\cap (y+W)\neq \emptyset$ and $z\in (x+U)\cap (y+W)$ then $(x+U)\cap (y+W)=z+(U\cap W)$.
(b) The following statements are equivalent:
(i) $U=W$ and $x-y\in U$.
(ii) $x+U=y+W$.I have done the following :

(a) let $z\in (x+U)\cap (y+W)$. That means that $z\in x+U$ and $z\in y+W$. So we have that $z=x+u$, for $u\in U$ and $z=y+w$, for $w\in W$.
How can we continue?

(b) $(i)\Rightarrow (ii)$ :
Since $x-y\in U$ we have that $x-y=u\Rightarrow x=y+u$. Then we have that $x+U=y+u+U=y+U$. Since $U=W$ we have that $y+U=y+W$. So we get $x+U=y+W$.

$(ii) \Rightarrow(i)$ :
Since $x+U=y+W$ we have that $x+u=y+w$, for $u\in U, w\in W$. Then we get $x-y=w-u$. How can we continue?:unsure:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey mathmari!

Suppose $z'$ is in the left hand set as well. Can we then prove it must be in the right hand set?
That is, can we prove that $z-z'$ is in $U\cap W$? 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Suppose $z'$ is in the left hand set as well. Can we then prove it must be in the right hand set?
That is, can we prove that $z-z'$ is in $U\cap W$? 🤔

Suppose $z'\in (x+U)\cap (y+W)$.
So we have that $z=x+u_1$, $z'=x+u_2$, for $u_1, u_2\in U$ and $z=y+w_1$, $z'=y+w_2$, for $w_1, w_2\in W$.
Then $z'-z=u_2-u_1\in U$ and $z'-z=w_2-w_1\in W$, so $z'-z\in U\cap W$.
This means that $z'\in z+U\cap W$, i.e. $(x+U)\cap (y+W)\subseteq z+U\cap W$.

For the other direction :
Let $z'\in z+U\cap W$, with $z\in (x+U)\cap (y+W)$. Do we take now a specific $z$ ? I mean that it is of the form $x+u$ and $y+w$ ?

:unsure:
 
mathmari said:
Suppose $z'\in (x+U)\cap (y+W)$.
So we have that $z=x+u_1$, $z'=x+u_2$, for $u_1, u_2\in U$ and $z=y+w_1$, $z'=y+w_2$, for $w_1, w_2\in W$.
Then $z'-z=u_2-u_1\in U$ and $z'-z=w_2-w_1\in W$, so $z'-z\in U\cap W$.
This means that $z'\in z+U\cap W$, i.e. $(x+U)\cap (y+W)\subseteq z+U\cap W$.

Good. (Nod)

mathmari said:
For the other direction :
Let $z'\in z+U\cap W$, with $z\in (x+U)\cap (y+W)$. Do we take now a specific $z$ ? I mean that it is of the form $x+u$ and $y+w$ ?
We can take the same $z$ as before, since it is given in the problem statement.
$z'$ must then be of the form $z'=z+u'=z+w'$ with $u'=w'$ in both $U$ and $W$. 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
We can take the same $z$ as before, since it is given in the problem statement.
$z'$ must then be of the form $z'=z+u'=z+w'$ with $u'=w'$ in both $U$ and $W$. 🤔

Since $z\in (x+U)\cap (y+W)$ we have that $z=x+u$ and $z=y+w$. So we get that $z'=x+u+u'\in x+U$ (since $u,u'\in U$ and so $u+u'\in U$ since $U$ is a subspace) and $z'=y+w+w'\in y+W$ (since $w,w'\in W$ and so $w+w'\in W$ since $W$ is a subspace).
That means that $z'\in x+U \ \cap \ y+W$.

Is that correct? :unsure:
 
As for question (b) :

$(i)\Rightarrow (ii)$ :
Since $x-y\in U$ we have that $x-y=u\Rightarrow x=y+u$. Then we have that $x+U=y+u+U=y+U$. Since $U=W$ we have that $y+U=y+W$. So we get $x+U=y+W$.

$(ii) \Rightarrow(i)$ :
Since $x+U=y+W$ we have that $x+u\in y+W$, for every $u\in U$ and $y+w\in x+U$, for every $w\in W$. Since $U$ and $W$ are subspaces $0$ is contained in both sets. So we get $x+0\in y+W \Rightarrow x-y\in W$ and $y+0\in x+U \Rightarrow y-x\in U \Rightarrow x-y\in U$.
So $x-y\in U\cap W$.

Is that correct so far? How do we continue to show that these sets are equal? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
Since $z\in (x+U)\cap (y+W)$ we have that $z=x+u$ and $z=y+w$. So we get that $z'=x+u+u'\in x+U$ (since $u,u'\in U$ and so $u+u'\in U$ since $U$ is a subspace) and $z'=y+w+w'\in y+W$ (since $w,w'\in W$ and so $w+w'\in W$ since $W$ is a subspace).
That means that $z'\in x+U \ \cap \ y+W$.

Is that correct?
Yep. (Nod)

mathmari said:
As for question (b) :

$(i)\Rightarrow (ii)$ :
Since $x-y\in U$ we have that $x-y=u\Rightarrow x=y+u$. Then we have that $x+U=y+u+U=y+U$. Since $U=W$ we have that $y+U=y+W$. So we get $x+U=y+W$.

$(ii) \Rightarrow(i)$ :
Since $x+U=y+W$ we have that $x+u\in y+W$, for every $u\in U$ and $y+w\in x+U$, for every $w\in W$. Since $U$ and $W$ are subspaces $0$ is contained in both sets. So we get $x+0\in y+W \Rightarrow x-y\in W$ and $y+0\in x+U \Rightarrow y-x\in U \Rightarrow x-y\in U$.
So $x-y\in U\cap W$.

Is that correct so far? How do we continue to show that these sets are equal?
Looks correct to me. (Nod)

When in doubt, the usual way to show sets are equal, is by contradiction.
Suppose the sets are not equal, then there must be... 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
When in doubt, the usual way to show sets are equal, is by contradiction.
Suppose the sets are not equal, then there must be... 🤔

We assume that $U\neq W$, then we have for example $U\subset W$. So there is a $w'\in W$ such that $w'\notin U$. But for this element it holds that $y+w'\in x+U$, so $-(x-y)+w'\in U$.
It holds that $x-y\in U$, so also $-(x-y)\in U$.
It also holds that $w'\in U$, a contradiction.

So it must be that $U=W$ and that $x-y\in U\cap W=U$. Is that correct? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
We assume that $U\neq W$, then we have for example $U\subset W$. So there is a $w'\in W$ such that $w'\notin U$. But for this element it holds that $y+w'\in x+U$, so $-(x-y)+w'\in U$.
It holds that $x-y\in U$, so also $-(x-y)\in U$.
It also holds that $w'\in U$, a contradiction.

So it must be that $U=W$ and that $x-y\in U\cap W=U$.

Is that correct?
I don't think we should state that "we have for example $U\subset W$. So there is a $w'\in W$ such that $w'\notin U$."
There are multiple relationships that $U$ and $W$ can have.
Instead we can state that if $U\ne W$ that there must be either an $u'$ in $U$ that is not in $W$ and/or there must be a $w'$ in $W$ that is not in $U$.
You continued with the second possibility, which is fine.
We should still state that the first possibility also leads to a contraction, for instance due to symmetry. 🤔
 
  • #10
Klaas van Aarsen said:
I don't think we should state that "we have for example $U\subset W$. So there is a $w'\in W$ such that $w'\notin U$."
There are multiple relationships that $U$ and $W$ can have.
Instead we can state that if $U\ne W$ that there must be either an $u'$ in $U$ that is not in $W$ and/or there must be a $w'$ in $W$ that is not in $U$.
You continued with the second possibility, which is fine.
We should still state that the first possibility also leads to a contraction, for instance due to symmetry. 🤔

Ahh I see! Thank you! (Smile)
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top