Undergrad Question on proof ##\Lambda^{\perp}(AU) = U^{-1} \Lambda^{\perp}(A)##

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the relationship between the orthogonal lattice of a matrix product and the orthogonal lattice of the original matrix, specifically that Λ⊥(AU) = U⁻¹Λ⊥(A). The proof begins by establishing that if y is in Λ⊥(A), then U⁻¹y is in U⁻¹Λ⊥(A) and shows one direction of the inclusion. The converse is also demonstrated by showing that if AUy = 0, then Uy is in Λ⊥(A), leading to the conclusion that UΛ⊥(AU) is a subset of Λ⊥(A). The discussion notes the restrictive nature of requiring integer entries for U and its inverse, primarily leading to matrices like ±I or those that permute standard basis vectors. The participants clarify notation and suggest that a more straightforward approach could have made the relationship more recognizable.
Peter_Newman
Messages
155
Reaction score
11
Say we have as special lattice ## \Lambda^{\perp}(A) = \left\{z \in \mathbf{Z^m} : Az = 0 \in \mathbf{Z_q^n}\right\}##. We define ##U \in \mathbf{Z^{m \times m}}## as an invertible matrix then I want to proof the following fact:
$$ \Lambda^{\perp}(AU) = U^{-1} \Lambda^{\perp}(A) $$
My idea:
Let ##y \in \Lambda^{\perp}(A)## that is ##y \in Az = 0##, now ##U^{-1}y = (U^{-1}Az = 0) \in U^{-1}\Lambda^{\perp}(A)## and let ##y' \in \Lambda^{\perp}(AU)## that is ##y' \in AUz = 0##, this implies ##y \in y'## which shows one direction.

I hope that this is not too simple thinking and therefore I am interested in your opinions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your notation is confusing. You don't mean y \in Az = 0 etc.; you mean y \in \{ z \i n\mathbb{Z}^m: Az = 0 \}, but you can just write "Let y \in \Lambda^{\perp}(A). Then Ay = 0."

The central point is that if Ay = 0 then we can write Ay = AUU^{-1}y so that U^{-1} y \in \Lambda^{\perp}(AU); hence U^{-1}\Lambda^{\perp}(A) \subset \Lambda^{\perp}(AU). But conersely, if AUy = 0 then Uy \in \Lambda^{\perp}(A) so that <br /> U\Lambda^{\perp}(AU) \subset \Lambda^{\perp}(A). But if U is invertible then U(B) = C \Leftrightarrow B = U^{-1}(C) for any subsets B and C of \mathbb{Z}^m. The result follows.

The requirement that a matrix have integer entries and have an inverse with integer entries is somewhat restrictive; the only ones which come to mind are \pm I and matrices which permute the standard basis vectors.
 
  • Like
Likes Peter_Newman
Thanks for your great help @pasmith ! Yes my notation is a bit confusing and also kept myself from seeing the result directly.

In the second part, you could have done the following: ##y \in \Lambda^{\perp}(AU)## then ##AUy = 0##, then ##Uy \in \Lambda^{\perp}(A)## which implies ##y \in U^{-1}\Lambda^{\perp}(A)## , right? The "advantage" would be that then ##\Lambda^{\perp}(AU) = U^{-1} \Lambda^{\perp}(A)## is directly recognizable, but this is more or less a rewriting.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K