B Gram-Schmidt Orthonormalization .... Garling Theorem 11.4.1 .

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading D. J. H. Garling's book: "A Course in Mathematical Analysis: Volume II: Metric and Topological Spaces, Functions of a Vector Variable" ... ...

I am focused on Chapter 11: Metric Spaces and Normed Spaces ... ...

I need some help with an aspect of the proof of Theorem 11.4.1 ...

Garling's statement and proof of Theorem 11.4.1 reads as follows:
Garling - Theorem 11.4.1 ... .png


In the above proof by Garling we read the following:

" ... ... Let ##f_j = x_j - \sum_{ i = 1 }^{ j-1 } \langle x_j , e_i \rangle e_i##. Since ##x_j \notin W_{ j-1 }, f_j \neq 0##.

Let ##e_j = \frac{ f_j }{ \| f_j \| }## . Then ##\| e_j \| = 1## and

##\text{ span } ( e_1, \ ... \ ... \ e_j ) = \text{ span } ( W_{ j - 1 } , e_j ) = \text{ span }( W_{ j - 1 } , x_j ) = W_j##

... ... "
Can someone please demonstrate rigorously how/why##f_j = x_j - \sum_{ i = 1 }^{ j-1 } \langle x_j , e_i \rangle e_i##

and

##e_j = \frac{ f_j }{ \| f_j \| }##imply that##\text{ span } ( e_1, \ ... \ ... \ e_j ) = \text{ span } ( W_{ j - 1 } , e_j ) = \text{ span }( W_{ j - 1 } , x_j ) = W_j##
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Garling - Theorem 11.4.1 ... .png
    Garling - Theorem 11.4.1 ... .png
    38.1 KB · Views: 510
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried inducting on the size of the basis?
 
Hi WWGD ... thanks for the hint ...

I've seen and followed a proof by induction in Axler: Linear Algebra Done Right ...

But ,,, I still do not follow Garling's logic ... particularly the part i quoted ...

Can you help further ...?

Peter
 
Hi again WWGD ...

Reflecting on your advice and on Axler's proof ... I now believe that I understand Garling's statement that I quoted ...

I will post the proof of Garling's statement later ...

Thank you for your help ...

Peter
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
Reflecting on my post above I have formulated the following proof of Garling's statement ... ...##\text{ span } ( e_1, \ ... \ ... \ e_j ) = \text{ span } ( W_{ j - 1 } , e_j ) = \text{ span }( W_{ j - 1 } , x_j ) = W_j##

We have ##e_1 = \frac{ f_1 }{ \| f_1 \| } ## and we suppose that we have constructed ##e_1, \ ... \ ... \ e_{j - 1 }## , satisfying the conclusions of the theorem ...Let ##f_j = x_j - \sum_{ i = 1 }^{ j-1 } \langle x_j , e_i \rangle e_i##Then ##e_j = \frac{ f_j }{ \| f_j \| } = \frac{ x_j - \sum_{ i = 1 }^{ j-1 } \langle x_j , e_i \rangle e_i }{ \| x_j - \sum_{ i = 1 }^{ j-1 } \langle x_j , e_i \rangle e_i \| }##

So ...

##e_j = \frac{ x_j - \langle x_j , e_1 \rangle e_1 - \langle x_j , e_2 \rangle e_2 - \ ... \ ... \ ... \ - \langle x_j , e_{ j - 1 } \rangle e_{ j - 1 } }{ \| x_j - \sum_{ i = 1 }^{ j-1 } \langle x_j , e_i \rangle e_i \| }##Therefore ...

##x_j = \| x_j - \sum_{ i = 1 }^{ j-1 } \langle x_j , e_i \rangle e_i \| e_j + \langle x_j , e_1 \rangle e_1 + \langle x_j , e_2 \rangle e_2 + \ ... \ ... \ ... \ + \langle x_j , e_{ j - 1 } \rangle e_{ j - 1 }##Therefore ##x_j \in \text{ span } ( e_1, e_2, \ ... \ ... \ , e_j )## ... ... ... ... ... (1)

But ##W_{j-1} = \text{ span } ( x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_{ j - 1 } ) = \text{ span } ( e_1, e_2, \ ... \ ... \ , e_{ j - 1} )## ... ... ... ... ... (2)Now (1) (2) ##\Longrightarrow \text{ span } ( x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_j ) \subseteq \text{ span } ( e_1, e_2, \ ... \ ... \ , e_j )##But ... both lists are linearly independent (x's by hypothesis and the e's by orthonormality ...)

Thus both lists have dimension j and hence they must be equal ...That is ##\text{ span } ( x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_j ) = \text{ span } ( e_1, e_2, \ ... \ ... \ , e_j )##
Is that correct ...?

Can someone please critique the above proof pointing out errors and/or shortcomings ...Peter

*** EDIT ***

Above I claimed that the the list of vectors ##e_1, e_2, \ ... \ ... \ , e_j## was orthonormal ... and hence linearly independent ... but I needed to show that the list ##e_1, e_2, \ ... \ ... \ , e_j## was orthonormal ...To show this let ##1 \le k \lt j ## and calculate ##\langle e_j, e_k \rangle## ... indeed it readily turns out that ##\langle e_j, e_k \rangle = 0## for all ##k## such that ##1 \le k \lt j ## and so the list of vectors ##e_1, e_2, \ ... \ ... \ , e_j## is orthonormal ...Peter
 
Last edited:
Math Amateur said:
##f_j = x_j - \sum_{ i = 1 }^{ j-1 } \langle x_j , e_i \rangle e_i##
You just have to note that ##f_j## is orthogonal to ##e_{j-1}, ... ,e_0##.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and Math Amateur
Back
Top