Subspaces and perpendiculuar subspaces

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between a subspace M and its double perpendicular subspace M double perp in the context of linear algebra. Participants are exploring how to demonstrate that M double perp is a subset of M, utilizing concepts of perpendicularity and dimensions of subspaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss proving that M is a subset of M perp perp by leveraging the definitions of perpendicularity and projections. There are attempts to clarify the implications of dimension relationships between M, M perp, and M perp perp.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the logical steps needed to approach the proof, while others have confirmed the validity of certain reasoning. There is an ongoing exploration of the necessity of projection notation in the argument.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the definitions and properties of subspaces and their perpendiculars, with some uncertainty about the notation and its implications in the proof process.

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
2K
  • · 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
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K