Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $A, B$ be subspaces. I want to show the following: $A \subseteq B \implies B^{\perp} \subseteq A^{\perp}$

Is the following a legitimate proof?

If $x \in A$, then $x \in B$ since $A \subseteq B$. Assume $x$ is not the zero vector. Then because $x \in A$, it must be the case that $x \notin A^{\perp}$. Similarly because $x \in B$ that means $x \notin B^{\perp}$. So we have shown that $x \notin A^{\perp} \implies x \notin B^{\perp}$.

Now by the contrapositive, we see that $x \in B^{\perp} \implies x \in A^{\perp}$. So $B^{\perp} \subseteq A^{\perp}$

share|improve this question
1  
Your argument is not correct! $x \not\in A$ do not imply that $x \in A^\perp$. –  kjetil b halvorsen Oct 10 '12 at 23:27
    
@kjetil: I don't see where that's asserted in the question. –  joriki Oct 10 '12 at 23:31
    
It seems tyo be there implicitely. –  kjetil b halvorsen Oct 11 '12 at 17:09

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

It's not generally true that $x\in A$ implies $x\notin A^\perp$, for instance in $\mathbb F_2^n$.

The proof is simpler than that and doesn't rely on any specifics of orthogonal complements. Since the orthogonal complement of $B$ is the set of all vectors that are orthogonal to all vectors in $B$, if we remove some elements from $B$ we've just made the requirement less stringent, so we can't have excluded any vectors from the orthogonal complement that were in it before; thus the orthogonal complement of a subset must be a superset of the orthogonal complement.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for the nice intuitive argument. Also what is $\mathbb{F}^n_2$ –  Student Oct 10 '12 at 23:34
    
@Student: $\mathbb F_2$ is the field with two elements, the smallest finite field, and $\mathbb F_2^n$ is the $n$-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb F_2$ of $n$-tuples with elements in $\mathbb F_2$. I suspect that you were only thinking of vector spaces over $\mathbb R$ or perhaps $\mathbb C$, but since your conclusion holds in all vector spaces equipped with a bilinear form, over arbitrary fields, the proof should ideally work for all fields and not rely on specifics of $\mathbb R$ and $\mathbb C$. –  joriki Oct 10 '12 at 23:44
    
But if my proof was for just $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$ would it be ok? –  Student Oct 10 '12 at 23:45
    
@Student: No, it wouldn't. You assume that $x\in A$ and then try to derive an implication with premise $x\notin A^\perp$. But that implication has to hold for all $x\notin A^\perp$, not just for $x\in A$, so you can't prove it starting from $x\in A$. (The reason I mentioned $\mathbb R$ is just that $(x\ne0\land x\in A)\Rightarrow x\notin A^\perp$ does hold in $\mathbb R^n$.) –  joriki Oct 10 '12 at 23:48
    
I get it now. Thanks! –  Student Oct 10 '12 at 23:52

Absolutely not.

If you want to prove about sets that $X\subseteq Y$, then it's usually going as:

  1. suppose we are given $x\in X$
  2. Then try to prove $x$ satisfies the criterium for $Y$ (i.e. $x\in Y$).

Now: suppose we are given $u\in B^\perp$ (what does it mean? $u$ is orthogonal to the whole $B$), then conclude that $u\in A^\perp$, of course, using the hypothesis $A\subseteq B$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.