Linear Algebra - Invariant Subspaces/Adjoint

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving the invariance of subspaces under linear transformations and their adjoints in the context of linear algebra. Specifically, it examines the relationship between a subspace U and its orthogonal complement Uperp with respect to a linear operator T and its adjoint T*.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of U being invariant under T and how that relates to Uperp being invariant under T*. They explore the definitions of invariance and the properties of inner products in this context.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the relationships between T, T*, U, and Uperp, suggesting that if one is invariant, it leads to conclusions about the other. There is an ongoing exploration of whether the reasoning presented is correct, with participants seeking confirmation of their understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information they can use or the methods they can apply. The discussion reflects a focus on understanding the properties of linear transformations and their adjoints without providing direct solutions.

steelphantom
Messages
158
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose T is in L(V) and U is a subspace of V. Prove that U is invariant under T if and only if Uperp is invariant under T*.

Homework Equations


V = U [tex]\oplus[/tex] Uperp
if v [tex]\in[/tex] V, u [tex]\in[/tex] U, w [tex]\in[/tex] Uperp, then v = u + w.
<Tv, w> = <v, T*w>

The Attempt at a Solution


If U is invariant under T, this means that if u [tex]\in[/tex] U, Tu [tex]\in[/tex] U. Basically the same thing for Uperp. Not really sure where to go from here. Any ideas? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rember that <u, w> = 0 for any u in U, v in Uperp. If U is invariant under T, then Tu is in U so <Tu, w>= 0= <u, T*w>, for any u in U. What does that tell you about T*w?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Rember that <u, w> = 0 for any u in U, v in Uperp. If U is invariant under T, then Tu is in U so <Tu, w>= 0= <u, T*w>, for any u in U. What does that tell you about T*w?

Does it say that T*w must be in Uperp, since <u, T*w> = 0 for any T*w?
 
Just a bump to see if I am understanding this correctly:

If T is invariant under U, then <Tu, w> = 0 since Tu is in U, w is in Uperp. But <Tu, w> = <u, T*w> = 0, which means that T*w is in Uperp. This proves that T* is invariant under Uperp.

If T* is invariant under Uperp, then <u, T*w> = 0 since u is in U, T*w is in Uperp. But <u, T*w> = <Tu, w> = 0, which means that Tw is in U. This proves that T is invariant under U.

Is that correct, or am I missing something?
 
steelphantom said:
Just a bump to see if I am understanding this correctly:

If T is invariant under U, then <Tu, w> = 0 since Tu is in U, w is in Uperp. But <Tu, w> = <u, T*w> = 0, which means that T*w is in Uperp. This proves that T* is invariant under Uperp.
Actually it proves that Uperp is invariant under T*!

If T* is invariant under Uperp, then <u, T*w> = 0 since u is in U, T*w is in Uperp. But <u, T*w> = <Tu, w> = 0, which means that Tw is in U. This proves that T is invariant under U.

Is that correct, or am I missing something?
No, your second part looks so much like the first part because T and T* are "dual".
 
Err... that's what I meant. :redface: It was kind of late. Thanks for your help! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K