Solved: Projection Theorem in Hilbert Space

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 2K views
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

[tex]\|x-y\| =\inf_{m\in M}\|x-m\|[/tex]

implies (equivalent to) that

[tex]x-y\in M^{\perp}[/tex]


The Attempt at a Solution



I have shown the implication "<=", ie that [itex]x-y\in M^{\perp}[/itex] 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 [itex]x-y\in M^{\perp}[/itex] then (x-y,z) = 0 for all z in M, so by Pythagoras thm

[tex]\|x-y+z\|^2 = \|x-y\|^2 +\|z\| \geq \|x-y\|^2[/tex]

M subspace => [itex]m = y-z \in M[/itex]. So [itex]\|x-y\| \leq \|x-m\|[/itex] 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 [itex]\|x-y\| \leq \|x-m\|[/itex], 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):

[tex]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\|[/tex]

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

[tex]||x-y+z||^2 = ||x-y||^2 + ||z||^2 \Leftarrow||x-y|| \leq ||x-y+z||[/tex]

The condition can be written as:

[tex]||x-y||^2 \leq ||x-y+z||^2 = ||x-y||^2 + 2 \Re (x-y,z) + ||z||^2[/tex]

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

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

[tex]0 \leq \|z\|^2 + 2(x-y,z) \leq \|z\|(\|z\| + 2\|x-y\|)[/tex]

So that [itex]\|z\|^2 + 2(x-y,z)[/itex] 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:

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

Given the above inequality, we can write:

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

But's it's easy to see that this will be negative at some points unless [itex]\Re(x-y,z)=0[/itex]. 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

[tex](t \|z\|^2 + 2Re(x-y,z))t < 0[/tex]
[tex]0< t < -\frac{2Re(x-y,z)}{\|z\|^2}[/tex]

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 [itex]-2Re(x-y,z)/\|z\|^2>0[/itex] or [itex]Re(x-y,z)<0[/itex].
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?