Proof of ##F## is an orthogonal projection if and only if symmetric

In summary, this is a proof of a linear transformation ##F## on an inner product space ##V## being an orthogonal projection if and only if ##F## is a projection and symmetric. The second equality in the attached image is justified by applying the definition of a symmetric linear map. This is done by setting ##u=v## and ##v=F(v)##, where ##v## and ##F(v)## are in the inner product space ##V##. This equation equates to ##0## because ##v## is in the orthogonal complement of the image of ##F## and ##F(v)## is in the image of ##F##. Therefore, the second equality is justified.
  • #1
schniefen
178
4
TL;DR Summary
This is a proof of a linear transformation ##F## on an inner product space ##V## being an orthogonal projection if and only if ##F## is a projection and symmetric.
The given definition of a linear transformation ##F## being symmetric on an inner product space ##V## is

##\langle F(\textbf{u}), \textbf{v} \rangle = \langle \textbf{u}, F(\textbf{v}) \rangle## where ##\textbf{u},\textbf{v}\in V##.​

In the attached image, second equation, how is the second equality justified? That is, ##\langle F(\textbf{v}), F(\textbf{v}) \rangle = \langle \textbf{v}, F(F(\textbf{v})) \rangle##. For projections in general, ##F=F^2##, but why does ##F(\textbf{v})=\textbf{v}## for ##\textbf{v} \in (\text{im} \ F)^{\perp}##
IMG_3099.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
schniefen said:
Summary: This is a proof of a linear transformation ##F## on an inner product space ##V## being an orthogonal projection if and only if ##F## is a projection and symmetric.

The given definition of a linear transformation ##F## being symmetric on an inner product space ##V## is

##\langle F(\textbf{u}), \textbf{v} \rangle = \langle \textbf{u}, F(\textbf{v}) \rangle## where ##\textbf{u},\textbf{v}\in V##.​

In the attached image, second equation, how is the second equality justified? That is, ##\langle F(\textbf{v}), F(\textbf{v}) \rangle = \langle \textbf{v}, F(F(\textbf{v})) \rangle##. For projections in general, ##F=F^2##, but why does ##F(\textbf{v})=\textbf{v}## for ##\textbf{v} \in (\text{im} \ F)^{\perp}##View attachment 250815

Apply the definition of symmetric linear map you quoted.
 
  • Like
Likes schniefen
  • #3
Hi, for the second equality you've got : ##||F(v)||^2 = <v, F(F(v))>## (because ##F## is symmetric) and this equate ##0## since ##v \in Im(F)^{\perp}## and ##F(F(v)) \in Im(F)##. Where is the problem?

Perhaps I didn't understand the question.
 
  • #4
Apply the definition of F you quoted for ##u=v##, ##v=F(v)## (those are replacement equations, not direct equations, i.e ##v## isn't something special such that ##v=F(v)##.
 

1. What is an orthogonal projection?

An orthogonal projection is a type of transformation in linear algebra where a vector is projected onto a subspace in a way that is perpendicular (or orthogonal) to the subspace. This means that the projected vector is the closest approximation of the original vector onto the subspace.

2. What does it mean for a projection to be symmetric?

A projection is symmetric if the subspace onto which the vector is projected is the same as the subspace from which the vector was originally projected. In other words, if the projection of a vector onto a subspace is the same as the projection of that same vector onto the same subspace but from a different direction, then the projection is symmetric.

3. How do you prove that a projection is orthogonal?

To prove that a projection is orthogonal, you need to show that the dot product of the projected vector and the subspace is equal to zero. This means that the projected vector is perpendicular to the subspace, which is the definition of an orthogonal projection.

4. Why is symmetry important in proving that a projection is orthogonal?

Symmetry is important because it ensures that the projection of a vector onto a subspace is unique. If a projection is not symmetric, then there could be multiple projections of the same vector onto the same subspace, which would make it difficult to determine the true orthogonal projection.

5. Can a projection be orthogonal without being symmetric?

No, a projection cannot be orthogonal without being symmetric. This is because the definition of an orthogonal projection requires the projection to be perpendicular to the subspace, which can only be achieved if the projection is symmetric.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
862
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
852
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
361
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top