Understanding the Limitations of the Projection onto a Subspace Equation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fredsmithsfc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Projection Subspace
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equation for projecting onto a subspace, specifically the expression Projv(x) = A(ATA)-1ATx. Participants explore the reasoning behind why this equation does not simplify to the identity operator IIx, considering the implications of A being a rectangular matrix.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the reasoning behind the projection equation and its simplification to the identity operator.
  • Another participant suggests that the initial reasoning may not be incorrect but questions the classification of the expression as a projection operator.
  • A participant points out that A is typically rectangular when projecting onto a subspace, which means its inverse does not exist, particularly when A is a column vector for line projection.
  • References to external sources, including Khan Academy and Wikipedia, are provided to support the initial claim about the projection operator.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are competing views regarding the nature of the projection operator and the implications of A being rectangular.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of the projection equation, particularly regarding the assumptions about the matrix A and its properties when projecting onto a subspace.

fredsmithsfc
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The Projv(x) = A(ATA)-1ATx

I'm puzzled why this equation doesn't reduce to Projv(x) = IIx

since (ATA)-1 = A-1(AT)-1 so that should mean that A(ATA)-1AT = AA-1(AT)-1AT = II

What is wrong with my reasoning?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It doesn't look wrong to me. Where did you get the idea that the first expression is a projection operator?
 
The problem is that A will be rectangular (non-square) if you are projecting onto a subspace, and thus its inverse does not exist (e.g. A is a column vector for projection onto a line).
 
Last edited:
Fredrik said:
It doesn't look wrong to me. Where did you get the idea that the first expression is a projection operator?

Hi Fredrik,

I first saw it in the Khan Academy Linear Algebra video: "Lin Alg: A Projection onto a Subspace is a Linear Transformation" which is at this link: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/lin-alg--a-projection-onto-a-subspace-is-a-linear-transforma?playlist=Linear%20Algebra

But I also found it at Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_(linear_algebra)

and in the book "Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra" by Carl Meyer on page 430

--
 
Last edited by a moderator:
monea83 said:
The problem is that A will be rectangular (non-square) if you are projecting onto a subspace, and thus its inverse does not exist (e.g. A is a column vector for projection onto a line).

That makes sense. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K