Proof about inner product spaces

evilpostingmong
Messages
338
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose V is a real inner-product space and (v1, . . . , vm) is a
linearly independent list of vectors in V. Prove that there exist
exactly 2^m orthonormal lists (e1, . . . , em) of vectors in V such
that
span(v1, . . . , vj) = span(e1, . . . , ej)
for all j ∈ {1, . . . , m}.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Alright, just to be sure I have the right idea (this is not the proof attempt)
I'll consider an orthogonal basis {u1} with j=1 so the non orthogonal basis for V
is {v1}.
I guess that if j=1 then let u1=v1 so e1=u1/llu1ll so two possible orthonormal lists are {e1} and{-e1} then after adding an additional element to the basis {v1} (call it
v2) j becomes 2, the non-orthogonal becomes {v1,v2}, the orthogonal basis is {u1,u2}
and u2=v2-proj_u2(v2) and e2=u2/llu2ll (with the other possible orthonormal basis
being -e2) but since e1 and -e1 cannot share
the same list, they must be put in separate (but similar) lists which double
the amount of lists from when j was 1 so now we have {e1, e2} and {e1, -e2}
and {-e1, e2} finally {-e1, -e2} four possible orthonormal lists. If m=j, that's it,
but if not, eventually when it does, we will keep multiplying 2^j by 2 as each vj is added to the basis {v1..vj-1}.
This isn't the proof, just want to see if I'm seeing this right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Are you sure you stated the problem right? Consider, for example, that any two-dimensional real inner-product space has infinitely many orthonormal bases.

(edit: aha, nevermind)
 
Last edited:


Yeah, that's the basic idea. Given e_1,..., e_{j-1}, there are two choices for e_j and they are additive opposites of each other
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top