Question about inner product spaces

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
Suppose you have an inner product space V (not necessarily finite dimensional; so it could be an infinite dimensional Hilbert space or something). Fix a vector \Phi in this space. Given an arbitrary vector \Psi \in V, can I write it as
<br /> \Psi = \Psi^{\parallel} + \Psi^{\perp},<br />
where \Psi^{\parallel} is parallel to the given \Phi and \Psi^{\perp} is perpendicular to the given \Phi?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the inner product is positive definite, then you can. Just write:

\Psi^\parallel = \frac{(\Phi,\Psi)}{(\Phi,\Phi)}\,\Phi

\Psi^\perp=\Psi-\Psi^\parallel
 
This is just the fact that

V=&lt;\Phi&gt;\oplus &lt;\Phi&gt;^\perp

where <> denotes the span.
 
The more general theorem says that if x is a member of a Hilbert space H, and K is a closed linear subspace of H, there's a unique y in K such that x-y\perp K. If we define x_\parallel=y and x_\perp=x-y, we can write x=x_\parallel+x_\perp. The theorem also says that y is at the minimum distance from x: d(x,y)=d(x,K).

(I'm saying linear subspace to emphasize that it's a subspace of the vector space, not the Hilbert space. A closed linear subspace is a linear subspace that's also a closed set. Some authors use the term "linear subspace" only when the set is closed, and the term "linear manifold" when it may not be closed).
 
@Fredrik: V is not assumed to be a Hilbert space (i.e. need not be complete) in this topic.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top