Union of Subspaces of V: Proving Containment

  • Thread starter Awatarn
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Vector
In summary, to prove that the union of two subspaces of V is a subspace of V if and only if one of the subspaces is contained in the other, we consider two cases. In the first case, if one subspace is contained in the other, their union will still be a subspace of V. In the second case, if the union of the subspaces is a subspace of V, one of the subspaces must be contained in the other. To prove this, we show that if we have an element w_1 in the union but not in one of the subspaces, the resulting linear combination will not have closure under addition, thus contradicting the assumption that the union is a subspace. Therefore
  • #1
Awatarn
25
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
  • #2
Yep, what hav 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.
 
  • #3
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:
  • #4
note the union of two distinct lines is not closed under forming poarallelograms
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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?
 
  • #7
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:
  • #8
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.
 

FAQ: Union of Subspaces of V: Proving Containment

How do you define the Union of Subspaces?

The Union of Subspaces is defined as the set of all elements that belong to at least one of the given subspaces. It is denoted by the symbol ∪ and can also be expressed as the sum of the subspaces, where the sum is taken over all possible combinations of elements from the subspaces.

What is the purpose of proving containment in the Union of Subspaces?

Proving containment in the Union of Subspaces is important because it helps us to understand the relationship between the given subspaces. It allows us to determine if one subspace is a subset of another subspace, which can have implications in various fields of mathematics and science.

What are the steps involved in proving containment in the Union of Subspaces?

The first step is to understand the definition of the Union of Subspaces and what it means for one subspace to be contained in another. Then, we can start by assuming that an arbitrary element from the first subspace is also in the second subspace. Next, we use the properties of vector addition and scalar multiplication to show that the arbitrary element also belongs to the Union of Subspaces. Finally, we conclude that the first subspace is indeed contained in the second subspace.

Can you provide an example of proving containment in the Union of Subspaces?

Yes, for example, if we have two subspaces in a vector space V, S = {(x,y) | x + y = 0} and T = {(x,y) | x = 0}, we can prove that S is contained in T by taking an arbitrary element (a,b) from S and showing that it also belongs to T. In this case, (a,b) would satisfy both the conditions for S and T, making it a member of the Union of Subspaces.

What are some applications of proving containment in the Union of Subspaces?

Proving containment in the Union of Subspaces has many applications in fields such as linear algebra, functional analysis, and geometry. It is used in solving systems of linear equations, finding bases for vector spaces, and analyzing geometric shapes and their properties. It is also a fundamental concept in understanding the structure of matrices and their operations.

Back
Top