Serlo: EN: Union and intersection of vector spaces

Aus testwiki
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen

{{#invoke:Mathe für Nicht-Freaks/Seite|oben}}

Motivation

We know various operations to construct a new set from given sets. If (Ui)iI is a family of sets, we can, for example, form the average iIUi or the union iIUi. Assume that the Ui are also subspaces of a larger vector space V. This means that the Ui are non-empty subsets of V, which are closed under addition and scalar multiplication. Are the average and the union of Ui then also subspaces of V?

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 3.

  1. Let us first look at the two planes U1=span{(2,1,0)T,(0,0,1)T} and W=span{(0,2,0)T,(0,0,1)T} (the y-z-plane). In the image we can see that its intersection is the z-axis span{(0,0,1)T}, i.e. a subspace of 3.
  2. The second image shows that the intersection of the line U2=span{(0,1,2)T} with the y-z plane W is also a line, namely U2.
  3. If we intersect the y-z plane W with the line U3=span{(1,1,1)T} instead, we see that the intersection only contains the zero vector. This is also a subspace of 3.


In the examples, the intersection of the two subspaces is always a subspace of 3. 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, U was contained in W, so that UW=W 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 UW and WU, then the union will not be closed under addition. There will then always exist two vectors u,w with uUW and wWU. The sum u+w thus contains a part that is not in U and therefore cannot be in U: Otherwise, w=u+wuU would also be true. The same applies to u+wW.

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 V was not relevant in the proof. In fact, UW is always closed under scalar multiplication, even if the union is not a subspace: If λK and xUW, say xU, then λxUUW holds, since U is closed under scalar multiplication as a subspace. The case xW is analogous.

Since V is a vector space and U,W are subspaces, (V,+) forms a group and (U,+),(W,+) subgroups. We have thus effectively shown that UW is a subgroup of V if and only if UW or WU 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 U and W is generally not a subspace. However, you can define the smallest subspace that contains UW. This subspace is the subspace sum U+W.

{{#invoke:Mathe für Nicht-Freaks/Seite|unten}}