Proof that a vector space W is the direct sum of Ker L and Im L

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a vector space W is the direct sum of the kernel and image of a linear map P, where P is defined such that P² = P. Participants are exploring the implications of this definition and how it relates to the structure of W.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the definition of a projection and its implications for the kernel and image of P. There is an exploration of how to express any vector w in W as a sum of elements from Ker P and Im P. Questions are raised about the meaning of P² = P and how to demonstrate that w - P(w) is in Ker P.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on how to approach the proof, emphasizing the need to establish certain properties of P and its effects on vectors in W. There is an ongoing examination of the definitions and relationships between the kernel and image, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem does not explicitly state that P is a projection, leading to some uncertainty. There is also mention of the need to clarify definitions and assumptions regarding the subsets involved in the proof.

nilwill
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi there. I'm a long time reader, first time poster. I'm an undergraduate in Math and Economics and I am having trouble in Linear Algebra. This is the first class I have had that focuses solely on proofs, so I am in new territory.

Homework Statement



note Although the question doesn't state it, I think P is supposed to be a projection.

Let W be a vector space. Let P:W→W be a linear map s.t. P2=P.

Show that W= KerP + ImP and KerP[itex]\cap[/itex]ImP

namely, W is the direct sum of KerP and ImP

Hint: To show W is the sum, write an element of W in the form w=w-P(w)+P(w)

Homework Equations



I am unsure of any relevant equations.

The Attempt at a Solution



KerP={z|P(z)=0}
ImP={P(v)|v[itex]\in[/itex]W}

I am kind of fuzzy on the meaning of P2=P, and this is where I am stuck.

Would an example be something like:

P=[itex]\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)[/itex]P2=[itex]\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) \times \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)[/itex] =P?

From this example: for KerP=P(z)=0 , we would need to satisfy z+0=0, so z=0

For some v[itex]\in[/itex]W, the ImP is P(v)=v.

KerP[itex]\cap[/itex]ImP=0→ P(v)=P(z) iff v=0 so z=v where the two intersect.I am unsure where to go from here, or if I'm even doing this correctly. If someone could nudge me along towards and answer without giving the me the full proof, it would be much appreciated. I've been stuck on this problem for 4 hours over two days and I can't seem to figure it out.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
P2 = P is sometimes used as the definition of a projection.

we can always write w = P(w) + (w - P(w))

no matter what w is.

P(w) is clearly in Im(P), so all you have to do is show that

w - P(w) is in ker(P).

what is P(w - P(w))?
 
P:V→V and P2=P

Let me see if I can define this better: so if V is the direct sum of U + W

let P(v)=u

let I am P be a complete subset of U; if u is an element of U P(u)=u, so I am P =U

let Ker P be a complete subset of W; if v is an element of V and v is an element of W, the v=0+w for some element w in W, so Ker P =W

let v=P(v)+(v-P(v))
Since P(v) is in the I am P, then (v-P(v)) is in the Ker P

So P(v-P(v))=P(v)-P2(v)=P(v)-P(u)=u-u=0
therefore, v-P(v) is in the Ker P

Is this correct so far? Sorry for not using latex. I have only used it in creating this post and was stretched for time.

I think I can do the rest if I have set this up correctly.
 
nilwill said:
P:V→V and P2=P

Let me see if I can define this better: so if V is the direct sum of U + W

we're not worried about "direct sum" just yet, just the sum (or "join").

let P(v)=u

let I am P be a complete subset of U; if u is an element of U P(u)=u, so I am P =U

let Ker P be a complete subset of W; if v is an element of V and v is an element of W, the v=0+w for some element w in W, so Ker P =W

none of this makes much sense. and it's unnecessary.

let v=P(v)+(v-P(v))

you don't need to "let" v = P(v) + (v-P(v)) it ALWAYS is, by the rules of vector addition.

Since P(v) is in the I am P, then (v-P(v)) is in the Ker P

you don't KNOW this yet, you're trying to prove it. proofs start with what you know. in this case, what you know is:

v = P(v) + (v-P(v)) (simple algebra, always true, since P(v) + -(P(v)) is the 0-vector) and:
P(v) is in Im(P) (by the definition of what Im(P) is Im(P)= {u in W: u = P(v) for some v in W}.) and:
P2 = P (so P(P(v)) = P(v), you'll use this later).

those are your "knowns".

So P(v-P(v))=P(v)-P2(v)=P(v)-P(u)=u-u=0
therefore, v-P(v) is in the Ker P

why bring "u" into this?

Is this correct so far? Sorry for not using latex. I have only used it in creating this post and was stretched for time.

I think I can do the rest if I have set this up correctly.

in my last post, i asked you a question:

what is P(w - P(w))? you don't need any "extra letters" to answer this, you just need one certain fact about P.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K