6
$\begingroup$

A problem in Peter Lax's Linear Algebra involves looking at the family of $n\times n$ self-adjoint complex matrices and asking: on how many real parameters does the choice of such a matrix depend? This made me ask: on how many real parameters does a choice of a $k$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$ depend? Clearly the $n-1$-dimensional subspaces as well as the $1$-dimensional subspaces are an $n-1$ parameter family, since we can specify a $1$-dimension subspace by choosing a vector up to scaling, and we can choose an $n-1$-dimensional subspace by choosing its one-dimensional orthogonal complement. This suggests that the formula should be something like ${n\choose k}-1$. I'm having trouble proving this...any ideas?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I would rather say that for a $k$-dimensional subspace $V\subseteq \Bbb R^n$, you need $k(n-1)$ parameters to describe it directly (a basis of vectors up to scaling), and $(n-k)(n-1)$ to describe indirectly. Though I have no proof at the moment that this is indeed the sharpest bounds possible. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Jun 21 '13 at 7:44
  • $\begingroup$ This may be helpful: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassmannian $\endgroup$ – user64480 Jun 21 '13 at 7:52
  • $\begingroup$ @user64480 Indeed, after some scrolling you'll find there: "In particular, the dimension of the Grassmannian is r(n–r);." $\endgroup$ – Elmar Zander Jun 21 '13 at 17:17
2
$\begingroup$

You can generate an arbitrary linear subspace of dimension $d$ by applying an orthogonal transformation on the subspace spanned by the first $d$ basis vectors. However, orthogonal transformations which happen completely inside the subspace have no effect, nor do orthogonal transformations which happen completely in its complement.

Since you need $k(k-1)/2$ parameters to specify an orthogonal transformation in $k$ dimensions, the number of arguments to specify a $d$-dimensional linear subspace of $\mathbb R^n$ is $$\frac{n(n-1)}{2} - \frac{d(d-1)}{2} - \frac{(n-d)(n-d-1)}{2}$$

To specify an affine subspace of dimension $d$, you need $n-d$ additional parameters to describe the displacement from the origin (displacements in the subspace don't change it).

Here are some examples:

To specify a $0$-dimensional linear subspace, you need $n(n-1)/2 - 0 - n(n-1)/2 = 0$ parameters. That's obvious, because there's only one 0-dimensional linear subspace.

To specify a $1$-dimensional linear subspace (a straight line through the origin), you need $n(n-1)/2 - 0 -(n-1)(n-2)/2 = n-1$ parameters. This is also clear; to specify a one-dimensional subspace, you need to specify one point on the unit sphere, which is $n-1$-dimensional.

To specify a $2$-dimensional linear subspace (a plane through the origin) in $\mathbb R^3$, you need $3\cdot2/2 - 2\cdot1/2 - 1\cdot0/2 = 2$ parameters.

More generically, from the formula you see that you need the same number of parameters to specify a linear subspace and to specify its complement, which is also obvious because one implies the other.

To specify a $1$-dimensional affine subspace (a general straight line) in $\mathbb R^n$, you need $n(n-1)/2 - 0 - (n-1)(n-2)/2 + (n-1) = 2(n-1)$ parameters. This can also be seen directly from the fact that you can write the points of the line as $\mathbf u + \lambda\mathbf v$, (2 vectors $\implies$ 2n parameters) but the length of $v$ is irrelevant (1 parameter less), and $\mathbf u$ can be changed by an arbitrary multiple of $\mathbf v$ (again, 1 parameter less).

Edit: As Elmar Zander noted, the formula for linear subspaces can be simplified significantly to $d(n-d)$.

Obviously this means that the number of affine subspaces then also simplifies to $(d+1)(n-d)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Fantastic answer, thanks! $\endgroup$ – Eric Auld Jun 21 '13 at 9:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Great insight! I just wanted to added that the formula simplifies significantly to $d(n-d)$. You can see that even without calculation, because you have triangular numbers, and from the big triangle of edge length $n$ you're subtracting smaller triangles of edge lengths $d$ and $n-d$, such that you're left with a rectangle with side length $d$ and $n-d$. $\endgroup$ – Elmar Zander Jun 21 '13 at 10:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Elmar, great simplification and insight. One thing I didn't understand: isn't $n(n-1)/2$ a triangle of edge length $n-1$, not $n$? $\endgroup$ – Eric Auld Jun 22 '13 at 12:03
  • $\begingroup$ @ElmarZander: Thanks to noting this. I'll add this to the answer. $\endgroup$ – celtschk Jun 22 '13 at 15:05
  • $\begingroup$ @EricAuld. You're right, the triangles have edge lengths (or rather: number of dots on each side) of $n-1$, $d-1$ and $n-d-1$ respectively. I was a bit sloppy here, but the result is the same, as you can easily visualize. $\endgroup$ – Elmar Zander Jun 22 '13 at 23:26

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.