Solved: Projection Theorem in Hilbert Space

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Projection Theorem in the context of Hilbert spaces, specifically examining the relationship between an element in a Hilbert space and a closed subspace. The original poster seeks to demonstrate that the distance from an element to the subspace is minimized when the difference lies in the orthogonal complement of that subspace.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss implications of the Projection Theorem, particularly the relationship between the conditions given and the properties of closed subspaces. They explore how to prove the converse of an established implication and question the necessity of certain conditions, such as the closure of the subspace.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of the theorem, with participants attempting to clarify the relationships between various mathematical expressions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the manipulation of inequalities and the use of specific mathematical properties, but no consensus has been reached on the proof structure or the necessary conditions for the implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of the closed nature of the subspace and how it affects the proof. There is also a focus on the real and imaginary components of inner products and their implications for the proof being discussed.

P3X-018
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Projection Theorem

Homework Statement


If M is a closed subspace of a Hilbert space H, let x be any element in H and y in M, then I have to show that

\|x-y\| =\inf_{m\in M}\|x-m\|

implies (equivalent to) that

x-y\in M^{\perp}


The Attempt at a Solution



I have shown the implication "<=", ie that x-y\in M^{\perp} implies the 1st statement. And I've been told that the implication (=>) I now want to show is basically in the that proof.

The proof for "<=" goes like: If x-y\in M^{\perp} then (x-y,z) = 0 for all z in M, so by Pythagoras thm

\|x-y+z\|^2 = \|x-y\|^2 +\|z\| \geq \|x-y\|^2

M subspace => m = y-z \in M. So \|x-y\| \leq \|x-m\| for all m in M. So this gives the implication the other way around.

But I don't see how I can go back, nor how the 'proof' for "=>" is basically contained in my this proof.
And how or where should I use that M is closed, I feel like it should have been used to conclude the implication "<=" from knowing \|x-y\| \leq \|x-m\|, or is it not needed for "<="?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's a summary of what you've already shown (assume x, y are fixed vectors, with y in M, and z is an arbitrary vector in M, so that w=z-y is also an arbitrary vector in M):

x-y \in M^\perp \Rightarrow (x-y,z)=0 \Rightarrow ||x-y+z||^2 = ||x-y||^2 + ||z||^2 \Rightarrow ||x-y|| \leq ||x-w|| \Rightarrow ||x-y|| = \inf_{m\in M}\|x-m\|

Now to get the other direction, start by seeing how many of those \Rightarrow's you can turn into \Leftarrow's (or to get both directions at once, \Leftrightarrow's). The one that should give you the most difficulty is:

||x-y+z||^2 = ||x-y||^2 + ||z||^2 \Leftarrow||x-y|| \leq ||x-y+z||

The condition can be written as:

||x-y||^2 \leq ||x-y+z||^2 = ||x-y||^2 + 2 \Re (x-y,z) + ||z||^2

\Leftrightarrow 0 \leq ||z||^2 + 2\Re (x-y,z)

Think about what happens when z is really small.
 
Last edited:
So using Cauchy Schwartz, since (x-y,z) must be real, I get

0 \leq \|z\|^2 + 2(x-y,z) \leq \|z\|(\|z\| + 2\|x-y\|)

So that \|z\|^2 + 2(x-y,z) gets 'squeezed' to zero, and hence (x-y,z) too? But if z varies it'll affect (x-y,z) too, so that thing can get small too. So how does varying z helps me in this?
 
Sorry, I'm not following your last post. One way to continue would be to write:

f(t) = ||tz||^2 + 2 \Re (x-y,tz)

Given the above inequality, we can write:

0 \leq f(t) = t^2||z||^2 + 2 \Re (x-y,z) t

But's it's easy to see that this will be negative at some points unless \Re(x-y,z)=0. There's a trick to get the same thing for the imaginary part. But I have a feeling there's a simpler way to do this.
 
Last edited:
That was my mistake I thought (x-y,z) should be real so I used Cauchy-Schwartz, but never mind that.

I see that there could be some points where that inequality could fail, but doesn't that need to be proved first? t would have to fulfill

(t \|z\|^2 + 2Re(x-y,z))t &lt; 0
0&lt; t &lt; -\frac{2Re(x-y,z)}{\|z\|^2}

So that f(t) would be negative. Don't we need to show that such a z in M would exist? Ie any z such that -2Re(x-y,z)/\|z\|^2&gt;0 or Re(x-y,z)&lt;0.
Otherwise it is clear how Re(x-y,z) has to be 0.

But I'm a little clueless on how to show Im(x-y,z) = 0, what is the trick you were talking about?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
550
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K