Intersection and Addition of Subspaces

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
2 replies · 2K views
TranscendArcu
Messages
277
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/3849/screenshot20120122at124.png

The Attempt at a Solution


Let [itex]S = \left\{ S_1,...,S_n \right\}[/itex]. If [itex]L(S) = V[/itex], then [itex]T = \left\{ 0 \right\}[/itex] and we are done because [itex]S + T = V[/itex]. Suppose that [itex]L(S) ≠ V[/itex]. Let [itex]B_1 \in T[/itex] such that [itex]B_1 \notin L(S)[/itex]. Then the set [itex]Q =\left\{ S_1,...,S_n,B_1 \right\}[/itex] is linearly independent. If [itex]L(Q) = V[/itex] then we are done since [itex]S + T = V[/itex] and [itex]S \cap T[/itex] [itex]= \left\{ 0 \right\}[/itex]. If not, then we may repeat the preceding argument beginning with the set Q. Thus, we would create a new set, call it Q', where [itex]Q' = \left\{ S_1,...,S_n,B_1,B_2 \right\}[/itex] and [itex]B_1,B_2 \notin S[/itex]. Then, if [itex]L(Q') = V[/itex], then we are done. If not, then we continue as above. This process must certainly end because V is itself stated to be finite. Thus, such a T as in the problem must exist.

I think I'm going in the right direction, but I'm not sure if I'm executing the proof correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I see where you are going, and you have the right concept. To be a bit clearer, how about starting with a basis for V, and let some part of that basis be the basis for S. Then go from there.
 
Sorry, but TranscendArc's method is better. You can't simply assume that there exist a basis for V that includes a basis for S. It is true, of course, but TranscendArc's method proves that.