Skew-symmetric matrices and subspaces

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catchfire
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrices Subspaces
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that the direct sum of the set of all nxn skew-symmetric matrices (W1) and the set of all nxn symmetric matrices (W2) is equal to the space of all nxn matrices (Mnxn(F)), given that the field F is not of characteristic 2.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate the direct sum property by considering specific examples of matrices in W1 and W2, but struggles with the requirement that W1 + W2 equals Mnxn(F). They question how the characteristic of the field F impacts their proof.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights regarding the implications of characteristic 2 on the definitions of symmetric and skew-symmetric matrices, noting that in such cases, the distinction between the two types of matrices can blur. This has led to further exploration of the original poster's understanding of the problem.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the assumption that F is not characteristic 2, which is crucial for the properties of symmetric and skew-symmetric matrices. The original poster expresses uncertainty about how this assumption aids in their proof.

Catchfire
Messages
30
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let W1 be the set of all nxn skew-symmetric matrices with entries from a field F. Assume F is not characteristic 2 and let W2 be a subspace of Mnxn(F) consisting of all nxn symmetric matrices. Prove the direct sum of W1 and W2 is Mnxn(F).


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I'll just do this for n = 3 for ease of formatting.

Assume A is in W1 and B is in W2.
A = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> 0 &amp; b &amp; c \\<br /> -b &amp; 0 &amp; d \\<br /> -c &amp; -d &amp; 0 \end{array} \right)

B = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> e &amp; f &amp; g \\<br /> f &amp; e &amp; h \\<br /> g &amp; h &amp; e \end{array} \right)

A+B = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> e &amp; b+f &amp; c+g \\<br /> f-b &amp; e &amp; d+h \\<br /> g-c &amp; h-d &amp; e \end{array} \right)

For elements ax,y = ay,x in A they must both equal 0. ∴ W1 \cap W2 = {0}

So I have one part of the direct sum proof but the W1+W2 = Mnxn(F) part isn't working for me, clearly the diagonal entries can't be all the same.

I guess the first thing I'm wondering about is how to use the assumption that F isn't characteristic 2. I don't see how that assumption helps me at all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The usual way to split a matrix A into symmetric and skew-symmetric is that (A+A^T)/2 is symmetric and (A-A^T)/2 is skew-symmetric (where ^T means transpose) and their sum is A. You are going to hit a glitch in characteristic 2. Because then 2=1+1 is not invertible.
 
Interesting I haven't seen those definitions before.
OK so the characteristic 2 condition is more of an edge case issue than anything?
 
Catchfire said:
Interesting I haven't seen those definitions before.
OK so the characteristic 2 condition is more of an edge case issue than anything?

It's not really a definition. It's a trick to define the projections onto the subspaces. And you could think of characteristic 2 as an edge case, I suppose. But the fundamental problem is that, e.g., the nonzero matrix [[1,1],[1,1]] is both symmetric AND skew-symmetric in characteristic 2. In fact, there is no difference between being symmetric and skew-symmetric. Because x=(-x).
 
Last edited:
thank you so much dick! you enlightened me about my homework due tmr!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K