Sum of subspaces – Serlo

In this article, we define the sum of two subspaces. This sum will again be a subspace, containing the two initial subspaces. We can think of the sum as a structure-preserving union.

What is the sum of subspaces? Bearbeiten

Consider two subspaces   and   of a vector space  . Now we want to combine these subspaces into a larger subspace that contains   and  . A first approach could be to consider  . However, we have already seen in the article union and intersection of vector spaces that the union is generally not a subvector space.

Why is that the case? For   and  , the vector   is not always in  , as you can see from this example.

 
Union of two lines in two-dimensional space

In order to solve the problem, we add all sums of the form   with   and   to the union of the two subspaces   and  . That means, we consider  . This expression still seems very complicated, but we can simplify it to  .

Question: Why is  ?

Since   and   are subspace, the vector   is contained in both subspaces. Therefore, the following applies to all  :

 

Therefore,  . Analogously, we get  .

We call this set the sum of   and   because it consists of the sums of vectors from   and  . Later we will show that this is a subspace.

Definition Bearbeiten

Definition (Sum of two subspaces)

Let   and   be two subspaces of a vector space  . Then we define the sum of   and   as

 

The sum is a subspace Bearbeiten

We still have to prove that   is a subspace.

Theorem (The sum is a subspace)

The sum
 
is a subspace of  .

How to get to the proof? (The sum is a subspace)

We need to check the subspace criterion. To do so, we utilise the fact that all vectors   can be written as   with   and  . We can then trace the conditions of the subspace criterion back to the respective properties of   and  .

Proof (The sum is a subspace)

Proof step:  

Since   and   are subspaces, we have   and  . Thus,  .

Proof step:   is closed with respect to addition

Let  . We must show that  . According to the definition of  , there exist   and  , such that   and  . We know that   and   are subspaces and therefore closed with respect to addition. Hence,

 .

Proof step:   is closed with respect to scalar multiplication

Let   and  . We must show that  . According to the definition of  , there exist   and  , such that  . Since   and   are closed with respect to scalar multiplication, we have

 .

Examples Bearbeiten

Sum of two lines in ℝ² Bearbeiten

 
The lines   and  

We consider the following two lines in  :

 

So   is the  -axis and   is the line that runs through the origin and the point  . What is the sum  ?

Using the definition   we can calculate a convenient set description for  :

 

We can write each vector in   as   with matching  . Specifically, for each vector   we can find scalars   and   such that  , namely   and  . Therefore,   holds.

Intuitively, you can immediately see that  . This is because   is a subspace of  , which contains the straight lines   and  . The only subspaces of   are the null space, lines that run through the origin and  . As the straight lines   and   do not coincide but are different,   cannot be a line. Therefore, we must have  .

Sum of two lines in ℝ³ Bearbeiten

 
The lines   and  

Consider the following lines in  :

 

Here   is the line in   that runs through the origin and the point   and   is the line that runs through the origin and  . We want to determine the sum  .

 

So   is the plane that is spanned by the vectors   and  .

Sum of two planes in ℝ³ Bearbeiten

 
The planes   and  

Consider the following two planes:

 

The planes are not equal. We can see this, for example, from the fact that the vector   lies in  , but not in  . Therefore, the two planes should intuitively span the entire space  . So we can initially assume that  .

We now try to prove this assumption. To do so, we have to show that each vector   lies in the sum  . We must therefore find vectors   for   and   such that  . Then   applies. Here we can use the definitions of   and  : Each vector   can be written as   with  . Similarly, each vector   can be written as   with  . So we want to find numbers   for the vector   satisfying

 

We can re-write this as

 

How can we choose   such that the above equation is satisfied? For instance,

 

will do this job.

To summarise, the following applies to any vector  :

 

Therefore,   indeed holds, i.e. the two planes together span the entire  .

Absorption property of the sum Bearbeiten

 
The line   and the plane  

We have already looked at a few examples of sums in the space  . Now let's look at another example in  . Let

 

Then   is the line that runs through the origin and through the point  . The subspace   is the  -plane.

What is the sum of the subspaces  ? The line   lies in the  -plane, i.e. in  . The sum is intuitively the subspace consisting of   and  . Since   is already contained in  , the sum should simply be  , i.e.  . This is indeed the case, as the exercise below shows.

Intuitively, this should also apply more generally: Let   and   be two subspaces of an arbitrary vector space  . If   lies in  , i.e.  , then the sum   should simply result in  . This is called the absorption property, as   is absorbed by   when taking the sum. We prove it in the following exercise.

Exercise (Absorption property of the sum)

Let   be a  -verctor space, as well as   and   two subspaces of  . Whenever  , then it follows that  .

Solution (Absorption property of the sum)

We assume that   applies and prove that  . To show this equality, we prove the two inclusions   and  .

Proof step:  

Let  . Then,

 

Proof step:  

Let  . Then there are vectors   and  , such that  . Since   we have  . We know that   is a subspace and therefore closed under addition. Furthermore,  . Thus we get  .

Hint

From the absorption property, we conclude   for any subspace  . This is because every subspace is contained within itself, i.e.,  .

Alternative definitions Bearbeiten

Using the intersection Bearbeiten

We have constructed a subspace   of  , which contains the two subspaces   and  . Since we have included only "necessary" vectors in our construction of  , this sum   should be the smallest subspace that contains both   and  .

We can also describe the smallest subspace containing   and   differently: We first consider all subspaces that contain   and   and then take the intersection of these subspaces. This intersection still contains   and   and is also a subspace, since the intersection of any number of subspaces is again a subspace. Intuitively, there should be no smaller subspace with this property. Thus, we also obtain the smallest subspace that contains both   and  . According to these considerations, it should therefore be the case that   is equal to the intersection of all subspaces containing   and  . We now want to prove this:

Theorem (Definition of the sum over the intersection of subspaces)

Let   be a vector space, as well as   and   two subspaces of  . For   gilt:

 

Proof (Definition of the sum over the intersection of subspaces)

We prove the two inclusions   and  .

Proof step:  

It is sufficient to show that   is a subspace that contains  . Then it follows from the definition of   that

 

We first show that   is contained in  . Then,   being contained in   will follow analogously. So let  . Since   is a subspace,  . Therefore,  .

Proof step:  

We must show that every subspace   of   that contains both   and   must also contain  .

Let   be such a subspace. Let  . Then there exist   and   with  .

In particular,   applies. Since   is a subspace,   holds.

We have thus shown:  .

This renders us the two alternative definitions:

Definition (Definition of the sum of subvspaces via the intersection)

Let   be a vector space, as well as   and   two subspaces of  . Then the sum of   and   is given by

 

Using the span Bearbeiten

We can describe the smallest subspace containing   and   or   in yet a third way. In the article "span", we saw that for a given subset   of  , the span of   is the smallest subspace containing  . Therefore,   is the smallest subspace that contains   and  . So it must also be equal to the sum  .

Theorem (Definition via the span)

Let   be a vector space, as well as   and   two subspaces of  . Then,

 

Proof (Definition via the span)

We show the two inclusions   and  .

Proof step:  

Let  . Then there exist   and   with  . Because the span of   consists of linear combinations of vectors from   and  , we indeed have  .

Proof step:  

we have seen that   is the smallest subspace that contains  . Since   is a subspace of   that contains  , we finally obtain  .

Dimension formula Bearbeiten

Now that we know what the sum of two subspaces   and   of a vector space   is, we can ask ourselves how large the sum   is. The sum of subspaces is the vector space analogue of the union of sets. For two sets   and  , the union   has a maximum of   elements. If   and   share elements, i.e. have a non-empty intersection, then   has fewer than   elements, because we count the elements from   twice. This gives us the formula

 

In order to transfer this formula to vector spaces, we need the correct concept of the size of a vector space, i.e. the analogue for the cardinality of a set for vector spaces. This is exactly the idea of the dimension of a vector space. Therefore, if an analogue formula holds for vector spaces, the following should be true:

 

If   is finite, we can convert this formula to a formula for  , namely

 

Before we prove our assumption, we will test it with a few examples:

 
The lines   and  

Let us reconsider the two lines from the example above:

 

We have already calculated above that  . This fits our assumption:   is two-dimensional,   and   are one-dimensional and the intersection   is zero-dimensional.

 
The planes   and  

Let us look again at the example above with the two planes:

 

We have already calculated above that   and the figure shows that   and   intersect in a straight line. This means that the dimension of   is three, the dimension of   and   are both two and the dimension of   is just one. So the dimension formula also holds in this case.

As a final example, we consider the subspace   in   and

 

The subspace   is a line through the origin, i.e.   and we have  . Because  , the Absorption property of the sum tells us that  . For the same reason, we have  . Thus,

 

So the dimension formula is also valid in this case.

Theorem (Dimension formula)

Let   be a finite-dimensional  -vector space, as well as   and   two subspaces of  . Then,

 

How to get to the proof? (Dimension formula)

The motivation for our formula comes from the world of finite sets. Therefore, we would also like to trace the proof back to the case of (finite) sets. The structure of a vector space can be reduced to its basis, which is indeed a finite set. The cardinality of a basis is exactly the dimension of the vector space, so we can trace the dimension formula back to a statement about the cardinality of (finite) basis sets. To do so, we have to choose suitable bases   of  ,   and   for which  . In this case, we obtain from the number-of-elements-formula for sets that   has the desired size. Then we just have to prove that   is a basis of  . We do this by reducing everything to the fact that   and   are already bases of   and  .

To construct the desired bases   and  , we use the basis completion theorem. With this we can extend a basis of   to one of   and one of  .

Proof (Dimension formula)

Let now   and  . Then there is a basis   of  . We can extend it to a basis   of  , as well as to a basis   of  .

We now show that   is a basis of  .

Proof step:   is a generating system

Since according to the previous theorem we have   , we know that   is a generating system of  .

Proof step:   is linearly independent

Let   with   and   such that

 

We can re-write this as

 

Since   is a basis of  , we can write the above element as a linear combination of these basis vectors:

 

This is equivalent to

 

Since   is a basis of  , it follows that   for all   and thus we get   for all  .

Plugging   into our first equation, we then get

 

This is a linear combination of the basis vectors from  , so   must also apply for all   and   for all  . Hence   is linearly independent.

Since   is a basis of   , we have

 

Warning

The formula from the above theorem cannot be used for infinite-dimensional vector spaces. The reason is that there is no unique, meaningful way to subtract infinity from infinity. To illustrate this problem, consider the sets   and  . Then   and thus  , which makes mathematically no sense. The same can happen with vector spaces: For example, we can consider   and   in  . Again,   and we have  .

However, if we move the term with the intersection to the other side of the equation, then the formula makes sense also for infinite-dimensional vector spaces. This means that for any subspaces   and   of a vector space  , we have

 

For this formula to also make sense in infinite dimensions, we require  , which is a mathematically meaningful and true statement.