Proving (x,x) = 0 implies x = 0 in real vector space V

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter steenis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear algebra
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that in a real vector space \( V \) with a real-valued inner product \( (,) \), if \( (x,x) = 0 \) then \( x = 0 \). Participants explore the properties of inner products, particularly focusing on the implications of non-degeneracy and positive semi-definiteness.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that a real-valued inner product is a symmetric bilinear map that is non-degenerate and satisfies \( (v,v) \geq 0 \) for all \( v \in V \).
  • There is a suggestion that to prove \( (x,x) = 0 \) implies \( x = 0 \), one must manipulate the given properties of the inner product.
  • Some participants propose examining the expression \( (x + ay, x + ay) \) for any \( a \in \mathbb{R} \) and \( y \in V \) to derive contradictions.
  • A later reply discusses the expansion of \( (x + ay, x + ay) \) leading to inequalities that must hold for all \( a \), suggesting that this approach could lead to a contradiction if \( x \neq 0 \).
  • Another participant mentions that if \( (x,y) \neq 0 \) for some \( y \), it leads to a contradiction when considering the non-degeneracy of the inner product.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the steps involved in the proof, indicating that they are stuck at various points.
  • One participant suggests using calculus to find the minimum of a quadratic function derived from the inner product properties, which could clarify the proof.
  • Finally, there is a discussion about the implications of the derived inequalities and how they relate to the original claim.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof, as there are various approaches and levels of understanding expressed. Some participants are able to follow the reasoning while others remain uncertain about specific steps in the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of translating definitions into a manipulable mathematical form, and there are mentions of unresolved steps in the proof process. The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with the concepts involved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners interested in the properties of inner products in vector spaces, as well as those studying proof techniques in linear algebra.

steenis
Messages
312
Reaction score
18
TL;DR
A semidefinite inner product is also positive-definite
I have the followinq question:

Let ##(,)## be a real-valued inner product on a real vector space ##V##. That is, ##(,)## is a symmetric bilinear map ##(,):V \times V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}## that is non-degenerate

Suppose, for all ##v \in V## we have ##(v,v) \geq 0##

Now I want to prove that if ##(x,x)=0## then ##x=0## for ##x \in V##

Can anybody help me ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
steenis said:
Summary:: A semidefinite inner product is also positive-definite

I have the followinq question:

Let ##(,)## be a real-valued inner product on a real vector space ##V##. That is, ##(,)## is a symmetric bilinear map ##(,):V \times V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}## that is non-degenerate

Suppose, for all ##v \in V## we have ##(v,v) \geq 0##

Now I want to prove that if ##(x,x)=0## then ##x=0## for ##x \in V##

Can anybody help me ?
Apart from ##(v,v) \geq 0##, what other properties does ##(,)## have?
 
It is a symmetric bilinear map ##(,):V \times V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}## that is non-degenerate
 
steenis said:
It is a symmetric bilinear map ##(,):V \times V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}## that is non-degenerate
Would it not be useful to translate those words into mathematical form?

By the way, the ethos on this site is to get you to do as much of the work yourself.
 
I think the words "symmetric", "bilinear", "map" , "##V \times V##", "##\mathbb{R}##", etc., are all mathematical terms, well known in linear algebra. So I do not know how to translate those mathematical words into "mathematical form."
 
steenis said:
I think the words "symmetric", "bilinear", "map" , "##V \times V##", "##\mathbb{R}##", etc., are all mathematical terms, well known in linear algebra. So I do not know how to translate those mathematical words into "mathematical form."
A proof usually requires definitions to be translated into something that can be manipulated. For example: to prove that the square of every even number is an even number, you would translate "even number" into ##n##, such that ##n = 2k## for some integer ##k##.

That's what I mean by mathematical form.
 
Well, in this case it is given that "##(v,v) \geq 0## for all ##v \in V##". My question is, can anybpdy manipulate this statement into "if ##(x,x)=0## then ##x=0##, for ##x \in V##". In this context, ##(,)## is a symmetric bilinear map that is non-degenerate
 
steenis said:
Well, in this case it is given that "##(v,v) \geq 0## for all ##v \in V##". My question is, can anybpdy manipulate this statement into "if ##(x,x)=0## then ##x=0##, for ##x \in V##". In this context, ##(,)## is a symmetric bilinear map that is non-degenerate
As I said, the ethos on this site is that you at least make some effort to produce a proof. The logic is that you should be able to make a start at least.
 
So try this. Let ##x \in V## such that ##x \neq 0## and ##(x,x)=0##. The there must be a ##w \in V## with ##(v,w) \neq 0## otherwise ##x=0##, because ##(,)## is non-degenerate. And here I am stuck Can anybody finish this ?
 
  • #10
steenis said:
So try this. Let ##x \in V## such that ##x \neq 0## and ##(x,x)=0##. The there must be a ##w \in V## with ##(v,w) \neq 0## otherwise ##x=0##, because ##(,)## is non-degenerate. And here I am stuck Can anybody finish this ?
I think the trick is to start looking at things like ##(x + ay, x + ay)##, for any ##a \in \mathbb R## and ##y \in V##.

Try to show that ##(x, x) = 0## implies ##\forall y: \ (x, y) = 0##. Which is equivalent to denegeracy.
 
  • #11
No, one step too far for me. I do not see it ...
 
  • #12
If you expand ##(x + ay, x + ay)##, remembering that that is always ##\ge 0##, then you get an inequality that holds for all real numbers ##a##. The trick is to show that is impossible. Try that step.
 
  • #13
Expanding ##(x+ay,x+ay) \geq 0## results in ##a{^2} (y,y)+2a(x,y) \geq 0##, Substituting ##a=(x,y) \ne 0## gives
##(x,y)^2 (y,y)+2(x,y)^2 \geq 0##, so ##(y,y) \geq -2##. here I am stuck again
 
  • #14
steenis said:
Expanding ##(x+ay,x+ay) \geq 0## results in ##a{^2} (y,y)+2a(x,y) \geq 0##, Substituting ##a=(x,y) \ne 0## gives
##(x,y)^2 (y,y)+2(x,y)^2 \geq 0##, so ##(y,y) \geq -2##. here I am stuck again
What about ##a = -(x, y)##?
 
  • #15
That results in ##(y,y) \geq 2##, that doesnot make it more clear
 
  • #16
steenis said:
That results in ##(y,y) \geq 2##, that doesnot make it more clear
That's essentially the contradiction you were looking for. ##y## was just some vector that had non-zero "inner product" with ##x##. You can scale ##y## down arbitraily.

If you go through the proof, you might see where you can tweak it to make things clearer.

Also, I think you need to get the proof formalised with all the logic and assumptions straight.

Let me show you a neat trick was to use some elementary calculus:

You had ##a{^2} (y,y)+2a(x,y) \geq 0##. Now if we define a function ##f(a) = a{^2} (y,y)+2a(x,y)##, we can find its minimum and show that is less than ##0##. This technique is useful and can be used to prove the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Note that for given ##x, y##, ##f(a)## is a regular real-valued function.

And, of course, the minimum value of ##a## is quite informative.
 
  • #17
not ready
 
  • #18
steenis said:
not ready
You must be able to find the minimum of a quadratic function!
 
  • #19
There is an extremum at ##a=\frac {-(x,y)} {(y,y)}## which has to be a minimum. The value of ##f## at ##a## is ##-(x,y)^2(y,y)## which is always smaller than 0. You can give me the last step, please
 
Last edited:
  • #20
steenis said:
There is an extremum at ##a=\frac {-(x,y)} {(y,y)}## which has to be a minimum. The value of ##f## at ##a## is ##-(x,y)^2(y,y)## which is always smaller than 0. You can give me the last step, please
Unless ##(x, y) = 0##, that contradicts that ##(x + ay, x+ay) \ge 0##.

To summarise: what you've shown is that ##(x, x) = 0## implies ##\forall y \in V: \ (x, y) = 0##, hence ##x## maps to the zero functional and the bilinear map is degenerate, unless ##x = 0##. In other words, degeneracy is equivalent to having a non-zero ##x## with ##(x, x) = 0##. Which is what you had to prove.
 
  • #21
Thank you very much. Do you have a reference ?
 
  • #22
steenis said:
Thank you very much. Do you have a reference ?
I haven't seen this precise proof before. But, if you look for proofs of the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality you'll find a few techniques for these sorts of problems.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K