Linear Algebra subspace troubles

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in linear algebra concerning finite dimensional subspaces and their relationships. The original poster seeks to demonstrate that there exists a point in a descending chain of subspaces where they stabilize, specifically that \( U_k = U_{k+1} = ... \). The context includes assumptions about the dimensions of the subspaces involved.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the dimensions of the subspaces, questioning the assumptions about zero dimensionality. Some suggest defining \( k \) as the smallest dimension among the subspaces, while others discuss the consequences of assuming \( U_i \neq U_{i+1} \) and the implications for dimension reduction.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions and reasoning related to the dimensions of the subspaces. Some participants provide insights into potential contradictions and clarify the implications of the finite dimensionality of \( V \). The discussion remains active with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the assumption that none of the subspaces are zero dimensional, which is central to the problem. There is also mention of the need for clarity on how dimensions can change throughout the sequence of subspaces.

Servarus
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let V be a finite dimensional subspace. Let V[tex]\supseteq[/tex]U1[tex]\supseteq[/tex]U2[tex]\supseteq[/tex]...[tex]\supseteq[/tex]Uk. Show that there exists k such that Uk=Uk+1=...=Un=...

Homework Equations


We were also told to assume none of the subspaces are zero dimensional, and to think about how the dimensions can change throughout.

The Attempt at a Solution


I know that all the Ui's are closed under vector addition, but I really don't know what to do with the information. I really don't know where to start. Any and all help will be appreciated.

Thanks guys.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, I believe I figured it out after a couple hours.
First I must assume that Uk is not zero dimensional. Then I say that another subspace must be zero dimensional since V is finite dimensional. Then prove that Uk is that subspace.

Let me know if I am doing this correctly. Thanks in advance.
 
Servarus said:
Ok, I believe I figured it out after a couple hours.
First I must assume that Uk is not zero dimensional. Then I say that another subspace must be zero dimensional since V is finite dimensional. Then prove that Uk is that subspace.

Let me know if I am doing this correctly. Thanks in advance.
Do you realize you just said "assume Ui is not zero dimensional" and then said "prove that Uk is that (zero dimensional) subspace"? So you are going to prove something you are assuming is false!

In any case, you said in your first post that "We were also told to assume none of the subspaces are zero dimensional" so why are you focusing on zero dimensional subspaces?

It is NOT necessary, and you were told to assume it didn't happen, that NONE of the given subspaces is 0 dimensional

For example, suppose V= R3, U1= {(x, y, 0)}, U2= {(x, 0, 0)} and, if k> 1, Uk= {(x, 0, 0)}. There are no zero dimensional subspaces in that sequence.

What you can do, since the dimensions of all subspaces must be positive, is let "k" be the smallest dimension of any of the subspaces. Any set of positive integers contains a smallest integer.
 
HallsofIvy said:
What you can do, since the dimensions of all subspaces must be positive, is let "k" be the smallest dimension of any of the subspaces. Any set of positive integers contains a smallest integer.
Oh wow, I'm extremely sorry. Been up for over 24 hours doing homework and obviously not thinking correctly.

Now I realized that I do need to make k the smallest dimension of any of the subspaces, and then be able to prove that k=k+1=k+2=...=n=... Also, I'm thinking I would show this by showing that the span{Uk}=span{Uk+1}=... But I'm a little stumped on how I would go about doing this.
 
If [itex]U_i[itex]is NOT equal to [itex]U_{i+1}[/itex], then, since [itex]U_{i+1}\subset U_i[/itex], [itex]U_{i+1}[/itex] must has lower dimension than [itex]U_i[/itex]. What is the smallest possible reduction in dimension? What is the maximum number of times that can happen?[/itex][/itex]
 
HallsofIvy said:
If [itex]U_i[/itex] is NOT equal to [itex]U_{i+1}[/itex], then, since [itex]U_{i+1}\subset U_i[/itex], [itex]U_{i+1}[/itex] must has lower dimension than [itex]U_i[/itex]. What is the smallest possible reduction in dimension? What is the maximum number of times that can happen?
So the proof would basically go as follows:
1) Assume [itex]U_i[/itex] [itex]\neq[/itex] [itex]U_{i+1}[/itex].
2) Then do a proof by contradiction and show that [itex]U_i[/itex] must equal [itex]U_{i+1}[/itex] because [itex]U_i[/itex] is the lowest dimensional subspace.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K