What is the proof for dimV=dimU\bot+dimU?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evilpostingmong
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the relationship between the dimensions of a vector space V, a subspace U, and its orthogonal complement U⊥. Participants are exploring the properties of linear transformations and their implications on dimensionality.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of a linear transformation T and its properties, questioning whether the null space of T corresponds to U⊥. There are suggestions to select bases for U and U⊥ and to show that their union forms a basis for V. Some participants express uncertainty about the definition of T and its implications for the proof.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering different approaches and questioning assumptions. There is recognition of the need to prove that the span of U and U⊥ equals V, indicating a productive exploration of the topic without reaching a consensus on the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of proving a mathematical statement without providing complete solutions. There is an emphasis on understanding the relationships between the dimensions of the spaces involved.

evilpostingmong
Messages
338
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


prove that dimV=dimU\bot+dimU

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I've done this on paper, and set V=nullT+rangeT where T maps a vector from
V to U. Is it safe to assume that nullT and U\bot are the
same? Reasoning is that <T(wi), T(uj)>=0 with wi in nullT and uj in U. Since T(wi)=0,
wi gets mapped to 0 in U, and given that the dot product=0, wi is orthogonal to uj. Also consider mapping
from say the xy plane to x. The y component is not in x, and it is at a right angle to all vectors in the
range x itself, so it is orthogonal to x. Same for mapping from x y z to x y. All z components are
orthogonal to all x and y components. This isn't the actual proof btw. If I'm wrong here, then I'll try a different
approach.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What T d you want to use?

I think better is this: select a basis \left{ u_1, u_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, \u_n\right} for U. Let \left{v_1, v_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, \v_n\right} be a basis for U^\perp. Now show that the union of the two sets is a basis for V.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
What T d you want to use?

I think better is this: select a basis \left{ u_1, u_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, \u_n\right} for U. Let \left{v_1, v_2, \cdot\cdot\cdot, \v_n\right} be a basis for U^\perp. Now show that the union of the two sets is a basis for V.

That's a much better approach! T maps v in V from V to U. dimV=n, dimU=m
m<n (in this case). v=a1v1+...+anvn. Tv=a1v1+...+amvm. Just wondering whether
or not nullT=U\bot. I can't prove anything without knowing what
I'm talking about. Good work, Halls!
 
That's fine as far as it goes. Sure null(T) is U^perp as you've defined it. But Halls also said you should prove the span of U and U^perp is V. You didn't do that. Do you see why that's necessary?
 
evilpostingmong said:
That's a much better approach! T maps v in V from V to U. dimV=n, dimU=m
m<n (in this case). v=a1v1+...+anvn. Tv=a1v1+...+amvm. Just wondering whether
or not nullT=U\bot. I can't prove anything without knowing what
I'm talking about. Good work, Halls!
I can't answer your question because you still haven't said what T is! All you have said is that "T maps v in V from V to U". There are many linear transformations that do that. What is T?
 
basis for V is {v1...vn} dimV=n dimU=m m<=n.T is the transformation that takes v (v=a1v1+...+anvn) and sends it to U so Tv=a1v1+...+amvm.
 
Ok let dimV=n, dim U=m m<=n, Let V=nullT+rangeT, in that dimV=dimnullT+dimrangeT. Let T be the transformation that takes v in V and maps it to U so that Tv=a1v1+..+amvm=a1u1+...+amum. Now split the basis for V into {w1...wk} for nullT and {u1...um} for rangeT=U. Since wi is in nullT, T(wi)=0, which shows that wi is orthogonal to uj (note: 1<=j<=m, 1<=i<=k). Since wi is orthogonal to uj, and wi is in nullT, nullT=Uperp and since dimV=dimnullT+dimrangeT, dimnullT=dimUperp. And since rangeT=U, dimrangeT=dimU. Therefore dimV=dimUperp+dimU.

I figured that since we already know that dimV=dimnullT+dimrangeT (since we know that it is true with any transformation from
any space to any other space: dim spaceX=dimnullT+dimrangeT for any
T mapping from X--->Y and Y is always the rangeT) we can find a way to show that nullT=Uperp. Now that we have shown that nullT=Uperp, its obvious that
their dimensions equate. And since rangeT=U, their dimensions equate. Therefore, dimV=dimnullT+dimrangeT=dimUperp+dimU
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
87
Views
11K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K