MHB Is the Orthogonal Complement of an Invariant Subspace Itself Invariant?

Sudharaka
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone, :)

Here's a question with my answer. I would be really grateful if somebody could confirm whether my answer is correct. :)

Problem:

Prove that the orthogonal compliment \(U^\perp\) to an invariant subspace \(U\) with respect to a Hermitian transformation is itself invariant.

My Answer:

Let \(B\) denote the associated bilinear form, and \(f\) denote the Hermitian transformation. Then we have to show that, \(f(U^\perp)\subset U^\perp\). That is,

\[B(f(u'),\,u)=0\]

for all \(u\in U\) where \(u'\in U^\perp\).

Take any \(u'\in U^\perp\). Then for any \(u\in U\),

\[B(f(u'),\,u)=B(u',\,f^*(u))\]

Now since \(f\) is Hermitian (self-adjoint) we have, \(f=f^*\). Therefore,

\[B(f(u'),\,u)=B(u',\,f(u))\]

Now since \(U\) is an invariant subspace, \(f(u)\in f(U)\subset U\). Therefore,

\[B(f(u'),\,u)=B(u',\,f(u))=0\]

Am I correct? :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sudharaka said:
Hi everyone, :)

Here's a question with my answer. I would be really grateful if somebody could confirm whether my answer is correct. :)

Problem:

Prove that the orthogonal compliment \(U^\perp\) to an invariant subspace \(U\) with respect to a Hermitian transformation is itself invariant.

My Answer:

Let \(B\) denote the associated bilinear form, and \(f\) denote the Hermitian transformation. Then we have to show that, \(f(U^\perp)\subset U^\perp\). That is,

\[B(f(u'),\,u)=0\]

for all \(u\in U\) where \(u'\in U^\perp\).

Take any \(u'\in U^\perp\). Then for any \(u\in U\),

\[B(f(u'),\,u)=B(u',\,f^*(u))\]

Now since \(f\) is Hermitian (self-adjoint) we have, \(f=f^*\). Therefore,

\[B(f(u'),\,u)=B(u',\,f(u))\]

Now since \(U\) is an invariant subspace, \(f(u)\in f(U)\subset U\). Therefore,

\[B(f(u'),\,u)=B(u',\,f(u))=0\]

Am I correct? :)
Yes. :)
 
Opalg said:
Yes. :)

Thanks for the confirmation. :)
 
##\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...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top