Proof Question: Invariance of U and U⊥ under T and T∗ for V subspace"

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evilpostingmong
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the proof of the invariance of a subspace U under a linear transformation T and its adjoint T*. Participants explore the implications of this invariance, particularly in relation to the orthogonal complement U⊥ and the dimensionality of the spaces involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how U⊥ can be invariant under T* when T* maps from U⊥ to V, suggesting confusion over the dimensionality and the nature of the mapping.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the existence of nullT* when T* maps vectors from a lower-dimensional space to a higher-dimensional space, questioning what elements could exist in nullT*.
  • A participant reiterates the definition of T* and the concept of invariance, aiming to clarify the relationship between T and T* in terms of mapping elements of U and U⊥.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the mathematical relationships involved, including the use of inner products to demonstrate the conditions under which T maps elements of U to U and T* maps elements of U⊥ to U⊥.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various levels of confusion and uncertainty regarding the definitions and implications of the invariance conditions, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the dimensionality of the spaces involved and the definitions of the transformations, which may affect the understanding of the invariance properties.

evilpostingmong
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Suppose T ∈ L(V) and U is a subspace of V. Prove that U is
invariant under T if and only if U⊥ is invariant under T∗.

Now for reference, L(V) is the set of transformations that map v (a vector) from V to V.
T* is the adjoint operator.
The case where the dimension of U is less than V bugs me. How can U
be invariant under T* when T* maps from U to V unless mapping to V
also counts as mapping to U since U is in V itself. Now when
I say map to V, I mean let's say V is 3 dimensional and U is 1 dimensional.
Then u=(x3) gets mapped (by T*) to a vector with three nonzero components.
Does this count as mapping from U to U?
I'm just a bit confused about this, and any help will be greatly appreciated.
I guess that I'm confused enough that my post doesn't make much sense,
so in that case, could someone nudge me in the right direction (ie give a good hint)?
Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, ok the thing that I don't understand is how nullT* can even
exist if T* sends a vector from a space of lower dimension to a space of higher dimension
unless 0 is the only element in nullT*. So if T* maps a vector from 2d space to 3d space,
what is within nullT*? Sorry for double posting, but I need to know badly. Thank you!
 
Umm... T* sends a vector from V to V. It's defined to be the linear transformation such that <Tu,v> = <u,T*v>

The definition of invariance is U is invariant under T if T(u) is in U for all u in U. So we want to show T maps elements of U to U if and only if T* maps elements of U to U. Start with the definition of T* above and the definitino of U
 
Office_Shredder said:
Umm... T* sends a vector from V to V. It's defined to be the linear transformation such that <Tu,v> = <u,T*v>

The definition of invariance is U is invariant under T if T(u) is in U for all u in U. So we want to show T maps elements of U to U if and only if T* maps elements of U to U. Start with the definition of T* above and the definitino of U

Let v be a vector in V, let u be a vector in U and let w be a vector in U[tex]\bot[/tex]. Let v=u+w. Now <Tu, u>+<Tu, w>=<u, T*u>+<u, T*w>
If T*w maps from U[tex]\bot[/tex] to U[tex]\bot[/tex], then <u, T*w>=0 therefore
<Tu, u>+<Tu, w>=<u, T*u> as a result. Now given that <Tu, u>=<u, T*u> (apply * to both sides gives
<T*u, u>+<u, T**u>=<T*u, u>+<u, Tu>) this equation holds when w is orthogonal to Tu which forces
T to map u from U to U as a result of w being orthogonal to Tu and to make <Tu, u>+<Tu, w>=<u, T*u> true.
Note that we wouldn't have arrived at <Tu, u>+<Tu, w>=<u, T*u> if T* didn't map w from U[tex]\bot[/tex]
to U[tex]\bot[/tex] and this equation allows <Tu, w> to=0 which allows Tu to map from U to U
since all elements u in U are orthogonal to all elements w in U[tex]\bot[/tex].
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K