What is the sum of two subspaces in linear algebra?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saladsamurai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Subspaces Sum
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the sum of two subspaces in linear algebra, specifically focusing on the subspaces U and W defined in \(\mathbf{F}^3\). Participants explore the implications of different definitions of W and how they relate to the sum of U and W.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the definition of the sum of two subspaces and its implications when the definitions of the subspaces change. There is confusion about how the elements of the subspaces combine and what it means to add them.

Discussion Status

Some participants are beginning to grasp the concept of subspace addition, while others express confusion about the definitions and the nature of the sums involved. There is an ongoing exploration of how different representations of W affect the resulting sums.

Contextual Notes

Participants note a lack of clarity regarding the definitions and properties of subspaces, particularly in relation to arbitrary elements and their combinations. There is also mention of a textbook definition that may require further unpacking.

Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7
This is an example that I am a little confused by:

[tex]U={(x,0,0)\in\mathbf{F}^3:x\in\mathbf{F}}\text{ and }W={(0,y,0)\in\mathbf{F}^3:y\in\mathbf{F}}[/tex]

Then
[tex]U+W={(x,y,0):x,y\in\mathbf{F}[/tex]

Okay, I get that. Now it says that U is defined the same as above but now let
[tex]W={(y,y,0)\in\mathbf{F}^3:y\in\mathbf{F}}[/tex]

Then the sum of U and W is the same as given above. Why is that? What is happening to that y that is in the "x" position?Perhaps I am confusing the definition of the sum of two lists with the sum of two subspaces.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If (a,b,0) is any point there is an x and y that solve it in the first case and there is also an x and y that solve it in the second case. Isn't this so? x and y are ANYTHING, right? Who cares what happened to the y?
 
Sorry. I guess I am getting lost in all of these definitions.

I guess I don't really understand what it means to 'Add' two subspaces...

See I have it in my head that I should be getting something like (x+y,y,0) ...but I know that is not right.

It says in my book that the "sum of two subspaces is the set of all possible sums of the elements of the two subspaces."

I guess I really don't understand what that means.:confused:
 
So if you have W in the first case:

U+W is the set of all vectors of the form u+w where u is in U and w in W. SO u+w = (x,0,0) + (0,y,0) = (x,y,0) where x and y are arbitrary.

For the second case, u=(x',0,0) for any x', and w = (y',y',0) for any y'. Then u+w = (x'+y',y',0). Now, we want to show that (x,y,0) is in U+W for arbitrary x and y. Given y, set y'=y and now we need that x'+y' =x i.e. x' = x-y. Hence we see we can find x' and y' such that u+w = (x,y,0) as required.

Basically, the point is that the set of all vectors of the form (x+y,y,0) is
1) two dimensional
2) contained in the set of all vectors of the form (x,y,0)

So they must be the same subspace
 
Office_Shredder: That is starting to sink in a little. Thanks for the explanation. I am finally at the end of this gruesome 1st chapter and can move onto the exercises. I think I will get a better understanding of these concepts by doing them.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K