Sum and intersection of anihalator spaces

  • Thread starter Thread starter talolard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intersection Sum
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a relationship involving annihilator spaces in the context of finite-dimensional vector spaces. The original poster attempts to show that the annihilator of the intersection of two subspaces is equal to the sum of their annihilators.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster presents an argument for both inclusions of the annihilator relationship but expresses uncertainty about the correctness of their reasoning. Some participants question the definitions and properties used in the proof, particularly regarding the implications of the annihilator definitions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's arguments, providing feedback on the logical flow and correctness of the reasoning. There is a recognition of potential errors in the original proof, and suggestions for clearer approaches are being discussed.

Contextual Notes

There is a need for clarification on the nature of the subspaces U and W, which are specified to be finite-dimensional subspaces of a finite vector space V.

talolard
Messages
119
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




prove that (U[tex]\bigcap[/tex]W)[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]=W[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]+U[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]


First prove That
(U[tex]\bigcap[/tex]W)[tex]^{\circ}[/tex][tex]\supseteq[/tex]W[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]+U[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]

Take any [tex]f\in (U\bigcap W)^{\circ}[/tex]
Then it is easy to see that for any [tex]f\in (U\bigcap W) f(v) =0[/tex]

but since [tex]v\in U and v \in W[/tex] then [tex]f \in U^{\circ} and f \in W^{\circ}[/tex]



So we have

(U[tex]\bigcap[/tex]W)[tex]^{\circ}[/tex][tex]\supseteq[/tex]W[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]+U[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]

Next prove
(U[tex]\bigcap[/tex]W)[tex]^{\circ}[/tex][tex]\subseteq[/tex]W[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]+U[tex]^{\circ}[/tex]

[tex]W^{\circ} + U ^{\circ} = span(W)^{\circ} + span(U)^{\circ}[/tex]

because

[tex]S^{\circ} =Span(S)^{\circ}[/tex]

[tex]span(W)^{\circ} + span(U)^{\circ} = span (span(W)^{\circ} \cup span(u)^{\circ}[/tex]

By definition of addition of subspaces

[tex]span (span(W)^{\circ} \cup span(u)^{\circ}= span (W \cup U) ^{\circ}[/tex]

Which I am not sure of

And after all of that, we know that [tex]span (W \cap U) ^{\circ} \subseteq span (W \cup U) ^{\circ}[/tex]

Which proves it if I did not make a mistake? Am I correct?

Thanks
Tal
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Need some more information here. What are [tex]U[/tex] and [tex]W[/tex]?
 
Sorry Finite subspaces of the finite space V
 
talolard said:
Sorry Finite subspaces of the finite space V

I'll assume you mean "finite-dimensional".

In the first half, your argument is both faulty and goes in the wrong direction. You say you intend to prove [tex](U \cap W)^\circ \supset U^\circ + W^\circ[/tex], and then you give an argument that begins with "take [tex]f \in (U \cap W)^\circ[/tex]" and concludes that "[tex]f \in U^\circ + W^\circ[/tex]". This argument, if correct, would prove [tex](U \cap W)^\circ \subset U^\circ + W^\circ[/tex], not [tex]\supset[/tex] : [tex]A \subset B[/tex] means that [tex]\alpha \in A[/tex] implies [tex]\alpha \in B[/tex].

However, the argument itself is not correct. If [tex]f \in (U \cap W)^\circ[/tex], and [tex]v \in U \cap W[/tex], then you are correct that [tex]f(v) = 0[/tex]. However, you cannot conclude from this that [tex]f \in U^\circ[/tex] on the grounds that [tex]f(v) = 0[/tex] and [tex]v \in U[/tex]. To conclude that [tex]f \in U^\circ[/tex] you would have to prove that [tex]f(v) = 0[/tex] for every [tex]v \in U[/tex], and this need not be true. What you actually want to do is give an equation [tex]f = g + h[/tex] where [tex]g \in U^\circ[/tex] and [tex]h \in W^\circ[/tex]; this proves that [tex]f \in U^\circ + W^\circ[/tex].

In the second half, I can't understand at all what you've written. This direction, [tex]U^\circ + W^\circ \subset (U \cap W)^\circ[/tex], actually has a simpler, direct argument like the above: take [tex]f \in U^\circ + W^\circ[/tex], and prove that [tex]f \in (U \cap W)^\circ[/tex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K