Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Can someone check the correctness of my proof.


  1. A single subspace $W_1$ is independent.
  2. Two subspaces $W_1,W_2$ are independent $\iff$ $W_1\cap W_2=\{0\}$

Two subspaces are said to be independent if $w_1+w_2=0, w_1\in W_1, w_2\in W_2$ implies that $w_1=0$ and $w_2=0$.


  1. $0$ can be expressed uniquely once a basis for $W_1$ is chosen.
  2. Let $w\in W_1\cap W_2$ and let $B=(v_1,\dots,v_n),C=(w_1,\dots,w_m)$ be bases for $W_1,W_2$. Then $$w=\sum_i x_i v_i=\sum_j y_j w_j$$ $$0=w-w=\sum_i x_i v_i-\sum_j y_j w_j$$ As $B,C$ are bases, we have: $$x_i=0\text{ }\forall i, y_j = 0\text{ } \forall j$$ Substituting back we get $w=0$ hence $W_1\cap W_2=\{0\}$

Conversely, suppose $W_1\cap W_2=\{0\}$. Consider the linear relation $$\sum_i x_i v_i + \sum_j y_j w_j$$ $$\sum_i x_i v_i = \sum_j (-y_j) w_j=v, \text{ for some } v$$ So $v=0\implies x_i = 0$ and $y_j=0$ for all $i,j$ because $B,C$ are bases. Therefor, $W_1,W_2$ are independent subspaces.

This argument extends to arbitrary collections of subspaces (by induction).

share|cite|improve this question
As far as I know, there is no sense in defining independence of a single subspace. If you are doing it for the sake of induction, start your induction at $2$. – Vishal Gupta Aug 27 '13 at 13:46
For the second case your argument seems to be fine. But what is your induction statement? – Vishal Gupta Aug 27 '13 at 13:47
@Vishal The intersection of n subspaces is 0 iff they are independent – saadtaame Aug 27 '13 at 13:53
The argument does not extend to more than 2 subspaces. For example, 3 lines in a 2-dimensional space are never independent. – Etienne Aug 27 '13 at 14:23
@Etienne Okay. Thank you! – saadtaame Aug 27 '13 at 18:53

Your proof for (2) is not entirely correct (but you're on the right path!). From $$ 0 = \sum_ix_iv_i - \sum_jy_jw_j, $$ you cannot conclude that $x_i=y_j=0$ for all $i,j$ from the fact that $\{v_i\}$and $\{w_j\}$ are bases of $W_1$ and $W_2$ respectively. This assumes that $(v_1,\dots,v_n,w_1,\dots,w_n)$ is itself a basis... which you cannot assume at this point. Indeed, you're trying to show that $W_1\cap W_2=\{0\}$.


Notice that $\sum_ix_iv_i\in W_1$ and $\sum_j(-y_j)w_j\in W_2$. As $W_1$ and $W_2$ are independent, this implies that $$ \sum_ix_iv_i = \sum_j(-y_j)w_j = 0 $$ and so $w=0$. Therefore, $W_1\cap W_2=\{0\}$.

And conversely:

We consider the linear relation $v+w=0$ for some $v\in W_1$ and $w\in W_2$. Then $v=-w$. We can conclude that $v,w\in W_1\cap W_2$. By hypothesis $v=w=0$. By definition, $W_1$ and $W_2$ are independent.

Note that you began by writing a sum (expression) in $W_1+W_2$, but not a linear relation. Then how did you find that $\sum_ix_iv_i=\sum_j(-y_j)w_j$? And when you set $v=0$, you were essentially assuming that the summands were both $0$.

To see why your final remark on the generalization is false, you might try to find subspaces $W_1,W_2,W_3$ such that $\bigcap_iW_i=\{0\}$ but not all of $$ W_1\cap W_2,\, W_1\cap W_3,\text{ and } W_2\cap W_3 $$ are trivial intersections.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.