Subspaces and perpendiculuar subspaces

  • Thread starter Thread starter jumbogala
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Subspaces
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that the double orthogonal complement of a subspace M, denoted as M double perp, is a subset of M. The participants utilize the properties of orthogonality and projection in Rn, specifically referencing the relationship between dimensions of subspaces and their orthogonal complements. The conclusion drawn is that if M is a subspace of Rn, then M is indeed equal to M double perp, as demonstrated through vector projections and dimension arguments.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector spaces and subspaces in Rn
  • Familiarity with the concept of orthogonal complements
  • Knowledge of vector projections and their properties
  • Basic understanding of linear algebra, particularly dimension theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of orthogonal complements in linear algebra
  • Learn about vector projections and their applications in Rn
  • Explore the relationship between dimensions of subspaces and their complements
  • Investigate the implications of the Rank-Nullity Theorem in linear transformations
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in linear algebra, mathematicians focusing on vector space theory, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of orthogonal projections and subspace relationships.

jumbogala
Messages
414
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


How do you show that M double perp is a subset of M?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


My prof told me to try proving that M is a subset of M perp perp, then to use the facts that if M is a subspace of Rn then T(X) = projU(X) for all X in Rn.

I'm not sure how to go about that. I know logically that it's a subset, but I don't know how to prove it.

I'm thinking that once I prove it, maybe I can show that the dimension of U and U perp perp are equal, so the spaces are equal too?

Can anyone help get me started? Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It follows pretty much from the definition of perpendicularity. Try it out and see what happens
 
Last edited:
Okay well I tried this:
Say X is a vector in M.

Then Y is a vector in M perp if Y ● X = 0.

Z is a vector in M perp perp if Z ● Y = 0.

But I can show that every vector X in M is also in M perp perp:
X ● Y = 0 because Y ● X = 0.

Therefore M is a subset of M perp perp. Is that part right?
 
Yeah, that's all there is to it for that part
 
Okay now for the next part.
T(X) = projM(X) = Y
dim(M) + dim (M perp) = n

S(Y) = projM perp(Y) = Z
dim(M perp) + dim(M perp perp) = n

Then n - dim(M) = n - dim(M perp perp)
dim (M) = dim(M perp perp)

Since M is a subset of M perp perp then they are equal?
 
I'm not sure precisely what your projection notation is supposed to say but the argument basically goes like how you posted:

For all subspaces U, dim(U)+dim(U perp)=n

So dim(M)+dim(M perp)=n

M perp is a subspace also, so dim(M perp)+dim(M perp perp)= n

And then subtract like you did to finish it off
 
Hmm okay, so the projection thing isn't actually necessary?

Thanks for your help, by the way!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K