Union of Subspaces of V: Proving Containment

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Awatarn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vector
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the union of two subspaces of a vector space V is a subspace of V if and only if one of the subspaces is contained within the other. Participants explore both directions of the proof, addressing the conditions necessary for the union to maintain the properties of a subspace.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that if one subspace is contained in the other, then their union is simply the larger subspace, thus satisfying the subspace criteria.
  • Another participant suggests trying both directions of the proof and mentions that the 'if' part is straightforward, while the 'only if' part may require a contradiction approach.
  • A participant attempts to prove the 'only if' part by stating that if there exists an element not in one subspace but in the union, it leads to a contradiction regarding the closure properties of subspaces.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the second part of the proof, with a participant emphasizing the necessity of closure under addition for a set to be a subspace.
  • One participant revises their argument to clarify that the linear combination of elements from the union does not maintain closure if one element is not contained in the other subspace.
  • Another participant challenges the reasoning, stating that the explanation does not sufficiently demonstrate understanding of why the result is true.
  • A further elaboration is provided using specific examples of lines in different dimensions to illustrate the failure of closure under addition in the union of distinct subspaces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correctness of the proof, particularly concerning the 'only if' part. Multiple competing views remain on how to approach the proof and the conditions necessary for the union of subspaces to be a subspace itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to closure properties and the necessity of specific conditions for the union of subspaces, but these remain unresolved within the discussion.

Awatarn
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Prove that the union of two subspaces of [tex]V[/tex] is a subspace of [tex]V[/tex] if and only if one of the subspaces is contained in the other. :approve:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yep, what have you done to try and figure out the answer? Have you tried both directions? The 'if' part is straightfoward. You might want to try contradiction for the 'only if' part.
 
I. The straight forward part:
1. for [tex]U_2, U_1[/tex] are subspaces of [tex]V[/tex]
2. let [tex]U_1[/tex] is contained in [tex]U_2[/tex].
[tex]\therefore U_1 \cup U_2 = U_2[/tex]
[tex]\therefore U_1 \cup U_2 = U_2[/tex]is also subspaces of[tex]V[/tex]

II. the 'only if' part:
1. For any [tex]U_1, U_2[/tex] are subspace of [tex]V[/tex], they must contain [tex]U_1 \oplus U_2[/tex] which is the smallest subspaces containing in [tex]U_1, U_2[/tex]
2. therefore if there is [tex]w_1 \notin U_1 ; w_1 \in U_1 \cup U_2[/tex], it will contradict to the statement 1.
3. the only way of existing of [tex]w_1[/tex] is that [tex]U_2 \cup U_1 = U_1[/tex] or [tex]U_2[/tex] is contained in [tex]U_1[/tex]

The proove finished. Is there sufficeintly complete? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
note the union of two distinct lines is not closed under forming poarallelograms
 
The second part is not correct. Just show that the union of subspaces does not give a subspace; think about mathwonk's hint. What must a subspace satisfy? Closure under addition.
 
I edit the second statement of the seconde part to:
2. Give [tex]w_1 \notin U_1 ; w_1\in U_1 \cup U_2[/tex]. If they will form subspace, it must write their linear combination in form of
[tex]au_1 + bw_1[/tex] where [tex]u_1 \in U_1 and w_1 \in W[/tex].
This linear combination have not closure under addition, if [tex]w_1[/tex] is not contain in [tex]U_1[/tex]

Is it OK?
 
No, not in my opinion- you've just asserted the result is true without explaining why. Now, I understand why it is true, but it does not convince me that you understand why it is true, which is what you're really attempting to show.
 
Last edited:
Awatarn said:
2. Give [tex]w_1 \notin U_1 ; w_1\in U_1 \cup U_2[/tex]. If they will form subspace, it must write their linear combination in form of
[tex]au_1 + bw_1[/tex] where [tex]u_1 \in U_1 and w_1 \in W[/tex].
This linear combination have not closure under addition, if [tex]w_1[/tex] is not contain in [tex]U_1[/tex]

According to mathwonk's idea, [tex]u_1 \in U[/tex] where it is the line in 3D and [tex]w_1 \in W[/tex] where it is the line in 2D. [tex]U[/tex] and [tex]W[/tex] is not the same line in 2D. [tex]U[/tex] may be the line of [tex]y=1[/tex] and [tex]W[/tex] is the line of y=2 When we write the linear combination of [tex]au_1 + bw_1[/tex], it will form a new line.[tex]U[/tex] may be the line of [tex]y=1[/tex] and [tex]W[/tex] is the line of y=2. Their linear combination will form line of [tex]y=3[/tex] . therefore the linear combination have not closure under addition.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K