Projection Operators on Vector Spaces: Clarifying Mistakes

HenryGomes
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Supposing we have a vector space V and a subspace V_1\subset V.
Suppose further that we have two different direct sum decompositions of the total space V=V_1\oplus V_2 and V_1\oplus V_2'. Given the linear projection operators P_1, P_2, P_1', P_2' onto these decompositions, we have that P_2\circ P_1=P_2\circ P_1'=0. But then we have that P_2(v)=P_2(P_1'+P_2')(v)=P_2 (P_2'(v)). Now, for v\notin V_1, given any w\notin V_1, we can find a decomposition such that P_2'(v)=w.
This gives the apparently wrong result that for any v,w\notin V_1, ~P_2(v)=P_2(w). Can anyone clarify the mistake?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
HenryGomes said:
Now, for v\notin V_1, given any w\notin V_1, we can find a decomposition such that P_2'(v)=w.
Can you elaborate on this?
 
Of course, I can't, because it's not true. Only if v-w\in V_1. I don't know from where I got that idea...
Thanks
 

Thread 'Trouble understanding an online solution to an exercise in Dummit & Foote'

##\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...
View full post »

Thread 'Questions about non existence of GCDs vs (coimages, cokernels)'

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...
View full post »

Thread '##(A/\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{a}}## and its isomorphism?'

I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
View full post »

Similar threads

I If L is diagonalizable, algebraic & geometric multiplicities are equal
Replies
4
Views
3K
I Example of complete set of operators
Replies
11
Views
919
Dot diagrams and Jordan canonical forms
Replies
3
Views
998
The efficiency of a heat engine
Replies
4
Views
1K
MHB Eigenspace is a subspace of V - ψ is diagonalizable
Replies
39
Views
3K
MHB Show that there are vectors to get a basis
Replies
9
Views
2K
Chemistry Calculation of thermodynamic variables for irreversible adiabatic process of ideal gas
Replies
9
Views
2K
Chemistry How to explain the difference between recompression of ideal gas reversibly and irreversibly after initial irreversible expansion?
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB Statements with linearly independent vectors
Replies
10
Views
2K
Proving ideas about projections
Replies
1
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top