I Finding the orthogonal projection of a vector without an orthogonal basis

AimaneSN
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Hi there,

I am currently reading a course on euclidian spaces and I came across this result that I am struggling to prove :

Let ##F## be a subspace of ##E## (of finite dimension) such that ##F=span(e_1, e_2, ..., e_p)## (not necessarily an orthogonal family of vectors), let ##x \in E##

Then we have:

##\forall y \in F## : ##y=p_F(x) \Leftrightarrow \forall i= 1,...,p : (x-y,e_i) = 0##

where ##(.,.)## denotes an inner product
and the linear map ##p_F## is the orthogonal projection onto ##F##.

I managed to prove the equivalence only when the family of the vectors ##(e_i)## is orthogonal but the result is more general.

Thank you and I would appreciate any hint or help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The inner product ##(x-y,e_i)## is zero for all ##i## if and only if ##x-y\in F^\perp## if and only if ##x## is of the form ##x=y+z## where ##z\in F^{\perp}## if and only if ##y## is the orthogonal projection of ##x## onto ##F##.

Your post was a bit of effort to read- it would be better to use latex.
 
Thank you for your reply, it's much clearer now. I just modified my post using Latex code.
 
OP: Notice you can always use Gram-Schmidt to orthogonalize your basis vectors, and this won't affect the span .
 
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC). Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\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