Linear Algebra: quick little question about sums of subspaces

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of sums of subspaces in linear algebra, specifically focusing on two subspaces of R² defined by the equations of lines. The original poster seeks clarification on the geometric and algebraic representation of the sum of these subspaces.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the geometric representation of the sum of two subspaces and questions the closure under addition. They also explore the algebraic representation and express confusion regarding the definition of the sum of subspaces.

Discussion Status

Participants have provided insights into the distinction between the union of subspaces and their sum, suggesting that the sum is related to the span of the union of bases for the subspaces. There is an ongoing exploration of how to demonstrate that the sum of the given subspaces results in R².

Contextual Notes

The original poster references a definition from their textbook regarding the sum of subspaces, indicating a desire to reconcile this definition with their understanding of the example provided.

tylerc1991
Messages
158
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Learning about sums of subspaces and wanted to be sure that I am understanding this correctly. Say that I have two subspaces of R^2:

U = {(x,y) in R^2 : y + 2x = 0}
W = {(x,y) in R^2 : y - 3x = 0}

and I wanted to geometrically (and algebraically) represent their sum. What would it look like?

The Attempt at a Solution



Geometrically: since U is the line y = -2x and W is the line y = 3x, their sum, U + W, would be represented by both lines y = -2x and y = 3x appearing on one plane. But I am getting hung up on this new set, U + W, being closed even under addition. Ex: take the point (1,-2) from U and (1,3) from W, their sum is (2,1) which is not on either line y = -2x or y = 3x. What am I doing wrong here?

Algebraically: basing this off of the geometric interpretation, I would say that the sum of U + W would be represented by the set: {(x,y) in R^2 : y + 2x = 0 or y - 3x = 0}, but I am getting hung up on the same problems I was having with the geometric interpretation.

Thank you anyone for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi tylerc1991! :smile:

What you seem to be doing is [itex]U\cup W[/itex], but like you notice, nobody says that this is closed uner addition, and it isn't.
What U+W actually is, is the space spanned by [itex]U\cup W[/itex]. So you've correctly calculated that

[tex]U\cup W=\{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2~\vert~y + 2x = 0~\text{or}~y - 3x = 0\}[/tex]

but you still need to take the span of it.

To do this efficiently, take a basis of U, take a basis of W and take the space spanned by the union of these two bases.

Hope that helped!
 
First, thank you for your help!

micromass said:
take a basis of U, take a basis of W and take the space spanned by the union of these two bases.

Would this not be the entire plane? My linear algebra is a little rusty :smile:, but I am thinking that the basis for U is some vector that points in the direction of the line y = -2x, and the basis for W is some other vector that points in the direction of the line y = 3x. The span of the union (addition) of these two vectors would be the whole plane.
 
Yep! We have

[tex]U+W=\mathbb{R}^2[/tex]

Quite boring isn't it? :biggrin:
 
micromass said:
Yep! We have

[tex]U+W=\mathbb{R}^2[/tex]

Quite boring isn't it? :biggrin:

Haha, yes it isn't all that exciting. This was just an example I thought up to try to get a geometric meaning for the sum of subspaces. I was hoping that this wouldn't tangent into more questions (because of the title :smile:), but it just might.

The definition of the sum of two subspaces given in the book I am using to brush up is this:
Given subspaces U_1, U_2, ..., U_m, the sum of these subspaces is denoted by U_1 + U_2 + ... + U_m and is defined as {u_1 + u_2 + ... + u_m : u_1 in U_1, u_2 in U_2, ..., u_m in U_m}. I hope this notation isn't confusing.

Using this definition, I am not seeing how we get R^2 in the example I am using.
 
tylerc1991 said:
Haha, yes it isn't all that exciting. This was just an example I thought up to try to get a geometric meaning for the sum of subspaces. I was hoping that this wouldn't tangent into more questions (because of the title :smile:), but it just might.

The definition of the sum of two subspaces given in the book I am using to brush up is this:
Given subspaces U_1, U_2, ..., U_m, the sum of these subspaces is denoted by U_1 + U_2 + ... + U_m and is defined as {u_1 + u_2 + ... + u_m : u_1 in U_1, u_2 in U_2, ..., u_m in U_m}. I hope this notation isn't confusing.

Using this definition, I am not seeing how we get R^2 in the example I am using.

Excellent question. It is indeed true that U+W is defined as

[tex]U+W=\{u+w~\vert~u\in U, w\in W\}[/tex]

However, the definition is not handy to work with. I prefer to use the equivalent

[tex]U+W=span(U\cup W)[/tex]

because you can easily calculate this.

But let's get back to your question. Can we show, using the definition, that

[tex]U+W=\mathbb{R}^2[/tex]

Yes! In fact, what we must do is for every [itex](x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2[/itex], we must find elements u and w of U and W such that u+w=(x,y).
Now, an arbitrary element of U has the form u=a(1,-2) for some a. Analogously, w is an element of W and thus has the form b(1,3).

So, we have to find a and b such that (x,y)=a(1,-2)+b(1,3). This yields a system of equations

[tex]\left\{\begin{array}{c} x=a+b\\ y=-2a+3b\\ \end{array}\right.[/tex]

which you can easily solve.

For example, for (x,y)=(0,5), we have (0,5)=-(1,-2)+(1,3)=(-1,2)+(1,3). So we have expressed (0,5) as sum of vectors in U and W. We can do this with any vector by solving the above system.
 
Ah, I see. Thank you micromass!
 

Similar threads

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