Suppose that{u1,u2, ,um} are non-zero pairwise orthogonal vectors

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter squenshl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orthogonal Vectors
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that for a set of non-zero pairwise orthogonal vectors {u1, u2, ..., um} in a subspace W of dimension n, the condition m ≤ n holds true. Participants emphasize the importance of clear notation, specifically regarding the definition of W as a vector space. They suggest starting with simple examples, such as R², to illustrate why the number of pairwise orthogonal vectors cannot exceed the dimension of the subspace. Additionally, the relationship between linear independence and orthogonality is highlighted as a crucial concept in understanding the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concepts of orthogonality and linear independence
  • Knowledge of dot products and inner products
  • Basic experience with mathematical proofs and notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of vector spaces and their dimensions
  • Learn about the relationship between orthogonality and linear independence in vector spaces
  • Examine examples of orthogonal sets in R² and R³
  • Explore the implications of the dimension theorem in linear algebra
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying linear algebra, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of vector spaces and orthogonal vectors.

squenshl
Messages
468
Reaction score
4
I need some direction. I don't have a clue where to start.
Suppose that{u1,u2,...,um} are non-zero pairwise orthogonal vectors (i.e., uj.ui=0 if i doesnt=j) of a subspace W of dimension n. Show that m<=n.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I assume by dot you mean dot product / inner product? It helps if you are really clear about your notation -- eg is W a vector space, ring, module, etc.

Second, in general, one fruitful way to start proofs like this is to take a simple example which you understand well and look at why your theorem is true or false. So examine, say, R^2 and see why any pairwise orthogonal set must be smaller than the dimension of the subspace it is in. One example set might be the usual basis.

Third, generalize.

Another way to start is to think about what is special about a vector space of size N? You should know that N implies several things -- ie the number of elements in a basis, the largest possible linearly independent set, isomorphism to F^n where F is your field, etc.
 


Thanks that helps a lot.
So how would I start my notation to my particular problem and do it.
 


Huh? If you want to say in words what you're having trouble expressing in a mathematical way, I'll help, but you need to put in the work to solve this.

Think about the interaction between linear independence and orthogonality.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
832