How Does Complexification Affect Subspaces and Their Annihilators?

  • Thread starter Thread starter julian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Subspace
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of subspaces and their annihilators within the context of complexification in vector spaces. The original poster introduces a real subspace F of a real vector space V and examines its complexification, particularly focusing on the relationships between the annihilator subspaces F^perp and G^perp.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the relationships between annihilator subspaces and their complexifications. Questions arise regarding the conditions under which these relationships hold, particularly whether the inclusion (F^perp)_C subset of (F_C)^perp can be proven in both directions. There are discussions about the properties of the symplectic form and the implications of assuming certain elements to be zero.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and attempting to prove various aspects of the relationships between the subspaces and their annihilators. Some participants question assumptions about the nature of subspaces, while others clarify definitions and properties relevant to the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of potential constraints regarding the definitions of subspaces and the conditions under which they operate, particularly in relation to closure under addition and scalar multiplication. Additionally, a connection to a separate question about the relationship between G and its dual is introduced, indicating a broader context for the discussion.

julian
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
861
Reaction score
366
Let F be a subspace of a real vector space V and let

G \subset V_C

i.e. a subspace of its complexification. Define the real subspace of G by


G_R := G \cap V.


There is a symplectic form w[u,v]. The annihilator subspace F^perp of V is defined by


F^perp = {v \in V : w[u,v] = 0 for all u \in F}


The annihilator subspace G^perp of V_C is defined by


G^perp = {v \in V_C : w[u,v] = 0 for all u \in G}.


Then the following results hold:


(F^perp)_C = (F_C)^perp,


It is easy to see that (F^perp)_C subset of (F_C)^perp. Could someone prove it the other way? I'm thinking F_C is larger than F so the annihilator condition is more restrictive?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
had a quick look & think it should work both ways

[tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]
[tex]p \in F^{\perp}[/tex]
[tex]p_c \in (F^{\perp})_c, \ \ p_c = p_1 + ip_2, \ \ p_1, p_2 \in F^{\perp}[/tex]

now take
[tex]f_c \in F_c, \ \ f_c = f_1 + i f_2, \ \ f_1, f_2 \in F[/tex]

[tex]w[p_c,f_c] = w[ f_1 + if_2, p_1 + ip_2 ] = 0[/tex]

so
[tex]p_c \in (F_c)^{\perp}[/tex]
 
and the other
[tex]\Leftarrow[/tex]

[tex]f_c \in F_c, \ \ f_c = f_1 + i f_2, \ \ f_1, f_2 \in F[/tex]

[tex]q \in (F_c)^{\perp}, \ \ w[f_c,q] = 0 , \ \ \forall f_c \in F_c[/tex]

[tex]q \in V_c, \ \ q = q_1 + iq_2, \ \ q_1,q_2 \in V[/tex]

[tex]w[q,f_c]=0 \ \implies \ w[q_1, f_1] = 0 \ \implies \ q_1 \in F^{\perp}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Thank you.


to prove the very last part do you put f_1=f_2 which implies from real and imaginary parts of w [q,f_c] are


w [q_1 + q_2 , f_1] =0

w[q_1 - q_2, f_1] = 0

adding gives

w[q_1,f_1] = 0 ?
 
no i'ev assumed w is a linear operator
w[q_1 + i q_2, f_1] = w[q_1, f_1] + w[i q_2, f_1] = 0

so it follows that each part must be zero (though you may need to be careful with conjugates)
 
I'm not sure you can put f_2 = 0 - it's not necessarily an element of F
 
F is a subspace, so must contain the zero vector by def'n
 
Are you assuming the subspace is a Vector subspace?

thanks
 
yeah that's generally what's meant by a subspace of a vector space...
 
Last edited:
  • #10
A subspace will be a vector space if it is closed under addition and multiplication by the field, but what if these conditions are not imposed?


I have another question (I don't know if it has a relation to the above). I mentioned a G at the begining. In the book he also says that if G=G^* then (G_R)_C. I know that we cannot have $z w = w^* in general and maybe that has something to do with it.
 
  • #11
sorry I meant


(G_R)_C = G
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
11K
Replies
20
Views
5K