Serlo: EN: Union and intersection of vector spaces
{{#invoke:Mathe für Nicht-Freaks/Seite|oben}}
Motivation
We know various operations to construct a new set from given sets. If is a family of sets, we can, for example, form the average or the union . Assume that the are also subspaces of a larger vector space . This means that the are non-empty subsets of , which are closed under addition and scalar multiplication. Are the average and the union of then also subspaces of ?
Intersection of vector spaces Vorlage:Anker
Is the intersection of subspaces of a vector space again a subspace? To answer this question, let us first consider the case of two subspaces and look at examples in .
- Let us first look at the two planes and (the y-z-plane). In the image we can see that its intersection is the z-axis , i.e. a subspace of .
- The second image shows that the intersection of the line with the y-z plane is also a line, namely .
- If we intersect the y-z plane with the line instead, we see that the intersection only contains the zero vector. This is also a subspace of .
-
Intersection of two planes
-
Intersection of a plane with a line
-
Intersection of a plane with a line
In the examples, the intersection of the two subspaces is always a subspace of . We now show that this also applies to general subspaces of any vector space.
Mathe für Nicht-Freaks: Vorlage:Satz
Mathe für Nicht-Freaks: Vorlage:Hinweis
We have shown that the intersection of two subspaces is again a subspace. However, at no point in the proof is it relevant that there are only two or finitely many subspaces involved. In fact, the statement applies to any family of subspaces.
Mathe für Nicht-Freaks: Vorlage:Aufgabe
Union of vector spaces
Is the union of subspaces of a vector space a vector space again? Let us first look at an example.
Mathe für Nicht-Freaks: Vorlage:Beispiel
So we see that the union of two subspaces is generally not a subspace. Is this always the case?
Mathe für Nicht-Freaks: Vorlage:Beispiel
The union of two subspaces is therefore in some cases, but not always, a subspace. In the example, was contained in , so that was a subspace. This always works: If two subspaces are given and one of them is contained in the other, then the union is equal to the larger of the two, i.e. a subspace again.
This is indeed the only case in which the union of two subspaces is again a subspace, as the first example with the coordinate axes makes clear: If and , then the union will not be closed under addition. There will then always exist two vectors with and . The sum thus contains a part that is not in and therefore cannot be in : Otherwise, would also be true. The same applies to .
We therefore have the following criterion for determining when the union of two subspaces is a subspace. Mathe für Nicht-Freaks: Vorlage:Satz The proof of the theorem shows that the property of being a subspace fails due to addition. The scalar multiplication on was not relevant in the proof. In fact, is always closed under scalar multiplication, even if the union is not a subspace: If and , say , then holds, since is closed under scalar multiplication as a subspace. The case is analogous.
Since is a vector space and are subspaces, forms a group and subgroups. We have thus effectively shown that is a subgroup of if and only if or holds. There is a more general statement about (not necessarily commutative) groups. The proof is quite analogous to the proof for subspaces that we have seen above.
Mathe für Nicht-Freaks: Vorlage:Satz
The union of subspaces and is generally not a subspace. However, you can define the smallest subspace that contains . This subspace is the subspace sum .
{{#invoke:Mathe für Nicht-Freaks/Seite|unten}}