Proof Question: Invariance of U and U⊥ under T and T∗ for V subspace"

  • Thread starter evilpostingmong
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, if T∈L(V) and U is a subspace of V, then U is invariant under T if and only if U\bot is invariant under T*. This can be proven by showing that T maps elements of U to U if and only if T* maps elements of U\bot to U\bot. This is because, for T to map from U to U, all elements of U must be orthogonal to all elements of U\bot, which forces T* to map from U\bot to U\bot. This also means that U\bot must be invariant under T* in order for U to be invariant under T.
  • #1
evilpostingmong
339
0
Suppose T ∈ L(V) and U is a subspace of V. Prove that U is
invariant under T if and only if U⊥ is invariant under T∗.

Now for reference, L(V) is the set of transformations that map v (a vector) from V to V.
T* is the adjoint operator.
The case where the dimension of U is less than V bugs me. How can U
be invariant under T* when T* maps from U to V unless mapping to V
also counts as mapping to U since U is in V itself. Now when
I say map to V, I mean let's say V is 3 dimensional and U is 1 dimensional.
Then u=(x3) gets mapped (by T*) to a vector with three nonzero components.
Does this count as mapping from U to U?
I'm just a bit confused about this, and any help will be greatly appreciated.
I guess that I'm confused enough that my post doesn't make much sense,
so in that case, could someone nudge me in the right direction (ie give a good hint)?
Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, ok the thing that I don't understand is how nullT* can even
exist if T* sends a vector from a space of lower dimension to a space of higher dimension
unless 0 is the only element in nullT*. So if T* maps a vector from 2d space to 3d space,
what is within nullT*? Sorry for double posting, but I need to know badly. Thank you!
 
  • #3
Umm... T* sends a vector from V to V. It's defined to be the linear transformation such that <Tu,v> = <u,T*v>

The definition of invariance is U is invariant under T if T(u) is in U for all u in U. So we want to show T maps elements of U to U if and only if T* maps elements of U to U. Start with the definition of T* above and the definitino of U
 
  • #4
Office_Shredder said:
Umm... T* sends a vector from V to V. It's defined to be the linear transformation such that <Tu,v> = <u,T*v>

The definition of invariance is U is invariant under T if T(u) is in U for all u in U. So we want to show T maps elements of U to U if and only if T* maps elements of U to U. Start with the definition of T* above and the definitino of U

Let v be a vector in V, let u be a vector in U and let w be a vector in U[tex]\bot[/tex]. Let v=u+w. Now <Tu, u>+<Tu, w>=<u, T*u>+<u, T*w>
If T*w maps from U[tex]\bot[/tex] to U[tex]\bot[/tex], then <u, T*w>=0 therefore
<Tu, u>+<Tu, w>=<u, T*u> as a result. Now given that <Tu, u>=<u, T*u> (apply * to both sides gives
<T*u, u>+<u, T**u>=<T*u, u>+<u, Tu>) this equation holds when w is orthogonal to Tu which forces
T to map u from U to U as a result of w being orthogonal to Tu and to make <Tu, u>+<Tu, w>=<u, T*u> true.
Note that we wouldn't have arrived at <Tu, u>+<Tu, w>=<u, T*u> if T* didn't map w from U[tex]\bot[/tex]
to U[tex]\bot[/tex] and this equation allows <Tu, w> to=0 which allows Tu to map from U to U
since all elements u in U are orthogonal to all elements w in U[tex]\bot[/tex].
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Proof Question: Invariance of U and U⊥ under T and T∗ for V subspace"

What is a proof?

A proof is a logical and systematic demonstration that a statement or mathematical proposition is true. It involves using previously established axioms, definitions, and theorems to support the validity of the statement.

Why is proof important in science?

Proof is important in science because it provides evidence and support for theories and hypotheses. It allows scientists to confidently conclude that their findings are valid and reliable, making it possible to build upon previous knowledge and make new discoveries.

How do scientists develop a proof?

Scientists develop a proof by carefully analyzing and evaluating the evidence they have gathered. This involves using various methods such as experimentation, observation, and mathematical calculations to support their claims. Scientists also rely on peer review and repetition of experiments to validate their findings.

Can a proof ever be considered absolute?

In science, a proof is considered absolute when it has been tested and accepted by the scientific community. However, new evidence or advancements in technology may lead to a revision or refinement of previously accepted proofs. Therefore, a proof can be considered absolute in the current scientific understanding, but it is always open to revision.

Are there different types of proof in science?

Yes, there are different types of proof in science. Some examples include deductive proof, which uses logical reasoning to draw conclusions from given premises, and inductive proof, which involves collecting and analyzing data to make generalizations and predictions. Other types of proof include experimental proof, observational proof, and mathematical proof, each of which may be used to support different types of scientific claims.

Back
Top