MHB Is the Projection Operator Self-Adjoint Only with Orthogonal Subspaces?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smile1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transformation
smile1
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone

I hope someone can check the solution for me.

Here is the problem:
Let $V=V_1\oplus V_2$, $f$ is the projection of $V$ onto $V_1$ along $V_2$( i.e. if $v=v_1+v_2, v_i\in V_i$ then $f(v)=v_1$). Prove that $f$ is self-adjoint iff $<V_1,V_2>=0$

my solution is this:
proof:"$\Rightarrow$"let $v_1\in V_1, v_2\in V_2$,
then $<f(v_1),v_2>=<v_1,f*(v_2)>=<v_1,f(v_2)>$, since if $f$ is self-adjoint,
then $f(v_2)=0, f(v_1)=v_1$, it follows that $<v_1,v_2>=<v_1,0>=0$,
hence $<v_1,v_2>=0$

"$\Leftarrow$" let $v_1\in V_1, v_2\in V_2$,
$<f(v_1),v_2>=<v_1,v_2>=0$, since $<v_1,v_2>=0$
$<v_1,f(v_2)>=<v_1,0>=0$
hence $<f(v_1),v_2>=<v_1,f(v_2)>$, $f$ is self adjoint.

It seems like something is wrong with my proof, but I really don't know. Hope someone can check it.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
smile said:
Hello everyone

I hope someone can check the solution for me.

Here is the problem:
Let $V=V_1\oplus V_2$, $f$ is the projection of $V$ onto $V_1$ along $V_2$( i.e. if $v=v_1+v_2, v_i\in V_i$ then $f(v)=v_1$). Prove that $f$ is self-adjoint iff $<V_1,V_2>=0$

my solution is this:
proof:"$\Rightarrow$"let $v_1\in V_1, v_2\in V_2$,
then $<f(v_1),v_2>=<v_1,f*(v_2)>=<v_1,f(v_2)>$, since if $f$ is self-adjoint,
then $f(v_2)=0, f(v_1)=v_1$, it follows that $<v_1,v_2>=<v_1,0>=0$,
hence $<v_1,v_2>=0$

"$\Leftarrow$" let $v_1\in V_1, v_2\in V_2$,
$<f(v_1),v_2>=<v_1,v_2>=0$, since $<v_1,v_2>=0$
$<v_1,f(v_2)>=<v_1,0>=0$
hence $<f(v_1),v_2>=<v_1,f(v_2)>$, $f$ is self adjoint.

It seems like something is wrong with my proof, but I really don't know. Hope someone can check it.
The "$\Rightarrow$" proof is fine. To show the converse implication, you need to take two vectors, $v_1\oplus v_2$ and $w_1\oplus w_2$ say, in $V_1\oplus V_2$, and check that $\langle f(v_1\oplus v_2),w_1\oplus w_2\rangle = \langle v_1\oplus v_2,f(w_1\oplus w_2)\rangle.$
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K