Is the following proof correct?

Theorem. Given that $U$ and $W$ are subspaces of the vector space $V$ such that $V=U\oplus W$ and $u_1,u_2,...,u_m$ and $w_1,w_2,...,w_n$ are bases for $U$ and $W$ respectively, then $$u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_n$$ is a bases for $V$.

Proof. We construct the proof by proving a series of Lemma.

Lemma(1). $span(u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_n)=V$

Proof. Consider an arbitrary element of $span(u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_n)$ say $$v=\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_iu_i+\sum_{j=1}^{n}b_jw_j\tag{1}$$ evidently $u=\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_iu_i\in U$ and $w=\sum_{j=1}^{m}b_jw_j\in W$ but since $U\oplus W=V$, It follows that $v\in V$. Since $v$ was arbitrary it follows that $span(u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_n)\subseteq V$.

Assume now that $v\in V=U\oplus W$ it then immediately follows that for some $u=\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_iu_i\in U$ and $u=\sum_{j=1}^{n}b_jw_j\in W$ it is the case that $v=u+w$ implying that $v\in span(u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_n)$.

We may now conclude that $span(u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_n)\subseteq V$.

consequently $span(u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_n)=V$.


Lemma(2). The list $u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_n$ is linearly independent.

Proof. Consider an arbitrary $v\in V$ and assume that $$v=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_iu_i+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\beta_jw_j=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\phi_iu_i+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\psi_jw_j\tag{2}$$ After a little algebraic manipulation we have $$\sum_{i=1}^{m}(\alpha_i-\phi_i)u_i+\sum_{j=1}^{n}(\beta_j-\psi_j)w_j=0\tag{3}$$ but $u=\sum_{i=1}^{m}(\alpha_i-\phi_i)u_i\in U$ and $w=\sum_{j=1}^{n}(\beta_j-\psi_j)w_j\in W$ and since $U+W=U\oplus W$ it follows that $u=w=0$ i.e. $$u=\sum_{i=1}^{m}(\alpha_i-\phi_i)u_i=0\tag{4}$$ $$w=\sum_{j=1}^{n}(\beta_i-\psi_i)w_i=0\tag{5}$$ But $u_1,u_2,...,u_m$ and $w_1,w_2,...,w_m$ are linearly independent lists in $U$ and $W$ and therefore in $V$ consequently $$\forall i\in\{1,2,...,m\}(\alpha_i=\phi_i)\tag{6}$$ $$\forall j\in\{1,2,...,m\}(\beta_j=\psi_j)\tag{7}$$ Therefore $v$ has only one unique representation in $V$ as linear combination of $u_1,u_2,...,u_m,w_1,w_2,...,w_m$.


Taking the above two Lemma together we have the required result.



Besides some typos it is ok, but I think it is too long.

Proof of Lemma 1.

Since $u_1,\ldots,u_m,w_1,\ldots,w_n \in V$ then $span(u_1,\ldots,u_m,w_1,\ldots,w_n)\subset V.$ If $v \in V=U \oplus W$ then $v=u+w$ for some $u \in U,$ $w\in W.$ Then $u=\sum_i\alpha_i u_i$ and $w=\sum_j \beta_j w_j$ for scalars $\alpha_i, \beta_j,$ so $v \in span(u_1,\ldots,u_m,w_1,\ldots,w_n)$ and hence $V \subset span(u_1,\ldots,u_m,w_1,\ldots,w_n).$

Proof of Lemma 2.

Suppose that $$ \alpha_1u_1+\cdots\alpha_mu_m+\beta_1w_1+\cdots \beta_nw_n=0$$ for some scalars $\alpha_i, \beta_j.$ Then $$ \alpha_1u_1+\cdots\alpha_mu_m=-(\beta_1w_1+\cdots \beta_nw_n) \in U \cap W=0.$$ Since the $u_i$ are linear independent then $\alpha_i=0$ for all $i.$ The same argument shows that $\beta_j=0$ for all $j.$ Therefore the list $u_1,\ldots,u_m,w_1,\ldots w_n$ is linear independent.

  • $\begingroup$ Wow i like your proof much better any advice against writing long winded proofs? $\endgroup$ – Atif Farooq Jul 27 '17 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ Write lots of proofs and do lots of exercises, no matter if proofs are long, and you'll keep improving and beginning to write shorter proofs. $\endgroup$ – positrón0802 Jul 27 '17 at 20:07

Your thinking is correct but I would suggest some improvements.

  • For the fist lemma you don't need to show in such detail that $$ \operatorname{span}\{u_1,\dots,u_m,w_1,\dots,w_n\} \subseteq V. $$ We know that given any subset $S \subseteq V$ that $\operatorname{span}(S) \subseteq V$ because where else would the linear combinations land? If you are working inside the vector space $V$ then any linear combination is in $V$.

  • When you are showing that $V \subseteq \operatorname{span}\{u_1,\dots,u_m,w_1,\dots,w_n\}$ you write $u = \sum_{i=1}^m a_iu_i$ without further comment. I would suggest you say that this can be done because $\{u_1,\dots,u_m\}$ span $U$ just as for the second lemma you appeal explicitly to the linear independence of $\{u_1,\dots,u_m\}$.

  • For the second lemma, from $u=\sum_{i=1}^{m}(\alpha_i-\phi_i)u_i\in U$ and $w=\sum_{j=1}^{n}(\beta_j-\psi_j)w_j\in W$, I would say $u = -w \in U \cap W = \{0\}$ which makes it more clear what $U + W = U \oplus W$ is supposed to imply.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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