Suppose we have 2 subspaces $\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathbf{R}^n$ and $\mathcal{B}\subseteq \mathbf{R}^n$ that have the same dimension, say dim $\mathcal{A}=$ dim $\mathcal{B}=l>0$. Is it true that they have a non null intersection?

Ignore this part and focus on the top question answered correctly by @paf

I'm reading a section of Meyer's book, Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra, on the Courant–Fischer Theorem. I'm following the proof of pages 550-551, but I don't seem to understand why $\tilde{\mathcal{V}} \cap \mathcal{F} \neq \emptyset$ . . . This two subspaces have the same dimension so I figure it might be a general property that it's being used. Is this the case? If not, how would your show that $\tilde{\mathcal{V}} \cap \mathcal{F} \neq \emptyset$, following the reasoning of Meyer?

  • $\begingroup$ I'm guessing you're missing some hypothesis, something along the lines of $\cal\dim A+\dim B>n$. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 5 '18 at 17:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Two lines with a single point in common... $\endgroup$ – Saucy O'Path Jun 5 '18 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think we have that type of hypothesis. The only general property I can think off is that dim$ \mathcal{A} \cup \mathcal{B}\geq l$, but this will not help. @AsafKaragila $\endgroup$ – J.D. Jun 5 '18 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Saucy: I'm confused. What's the dimension of $\{0\}$? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 5 '18 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila just edit the question such that l>0. If l=0 then one could easily arrive at a contradiction. Simply choose $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{B}=\emptyset$ and conclude that $l=0$ and $l>0$. $\endgroup$ – J.D. Jun 5 '18 at 18:20

I'm not sure of your question, hence I'll give two answers.

1. Two vector subspaces of $\Bbb R^n$ always have non-empty ($\ne \varnothing$) intersection. Indeed, by definition, every vector subspace must contain the zero vector.

2. But their intersection can be exactly $\{0\}$ (thus having dimension $0$). Simply take two distinct vector subspaces of dimension 1 in $\Bbb R^2$ (i.e. 2 lines through 0)! To have an example valid for all $n$, if $V = \{a_1x_1 + \dots + a_nx_n = 0\}\subset \Bbb R^n$, then the line $W$ generated by $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ intersects $V$ only at the zero vector.

So don't confuse $\varnothing$ and $\{0\}$...

  • $\begingroup$ @pad Hum I see. I was not confusing $\{0\}$ and $\emptyset$. I simply did not think off $\{0\}$. But I see your point. In reality, for the theorem I was trying to prove, one actually needs that this vector [that belongs to the intersection] has unit norm . . . In that case, I don't see how Meyer's is finding such a vector to complete it's prove. Nonetheless your answer was correct and I thank you for your response. Do you have any suggestions? $\endgroup$ – J.D. Jun 5 '18 at 19:07
  • $\begingroup$ I assume that $(\mathbf{e}_1,...,\mathbf{e}_n)$ is the canonical basis of $\Bbb R^n$ with the canonical inner product. Since $\mathcal F= \text{span}(\mathbf{e}_1,...,\mathbf{e}_i)$ and $\tilde{\mathcal V} = (\mathbf{e}_1,...,\mathbf{e}_{i-1})^{\perp}$ and since $\mathbf{e}_i\in \tilde{\mathcal V}$, we obtain that $\tilde{\mathcal V}\cap \mathcal F$ contains $\mathbf{e}_i$ (and in fact, this intersection is exactly $\text{span}(\mathbf{e}_i)$). $\endgroup$ – paf Jun 5 '18 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ Of course. What a dumb question. Thank you for checking the prove and answering my question. I confused the definition of the sets and was doing the intersection of $\mathcal{V}$ with $\{e_i,\dots,e_n\}$,which is the orthogonal complement of $\tilde{\mathcal{V}}$. Nevermind, you are absolutely correct. In fact my question is incorrect. The sets I mentioned in the question do not have the same dimension . . . I think it's better to delete the question not to confuse anyone . . . $\endgroup$ – J.D. Jun 5 '18 at 20:03

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.