5
$\begingroup$

I know that hyperplanes of a n-dimensional vector space are sub-spaces of dimension n-1, This is in finite dimension spaces. BUT what about infinite dimension spaces what are hyperplanes? are they the same?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

When you are generalizing an idea to a domain in which it is not, a priori defined, you can do it in any way you want.

If your definition of hyperplane is that it is a subspace of dimension $n-1$ where $n$ is the dimension of the space, and now you want to extend this for when $n$ is $\infty$, you could say that $\infty-1=\infty$ and therefore you will call hyperplane any subspace of infinite dimension.

The thing is that often one generalizes when there is a need for it. When you can find something interesting in the generalization.

For finite dimension a hyperplane is the zero set of a linear form (a linear functional), a linear function from the space to the scalar field. So, another possibility is to say that a hyperplane is the zero set of a linear functional. This is the option that is more often used.

A rough criterion of how good a definition is Halmos': A good definition is the hypothesis of a theorem. The thing is that many theorems involve the zero set of linear functionals. 'any infinite dimensional subspace' are less interesting as a class.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How to prove that the zero set of a linear functional always has codimension of 1, even if the original space has infinite dimensions? $\endgroup$ – High GPA Oct 14 '20 at 10:41
2
$\begingroup$

I know this is an old question, but it seems to me that no one has answered it in a "correct" fashion yet, concerning "infinite" of course.

The most generalized definition I've seen is the next one:

Let H be a subspace in a vector space X. H is called hyperplane if $H \neq X$ and for every subspace V such that $ H \subseteq V $ only one of the following is satisfied: $ V = X$ or $ V = H $.

Lemma: A subspace H in X is hyperplane iff e is in X \ H such that $$ <\{e,H \}> = \{ \lambda e + h : \lambda \epsilon \mathbb{R}, h \epsilon H\} = X $$

Just for fun:

Theorem: A subspace H in a vector space X is hyperplane iff there is a non-zero linear function $$ l : X \to \mathbb{R}$$ such that $$ H = \{x \epsilon X : l(x) = 0\} = Ker( l ) $$

Good luck proving this.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Usually this is how one hears the definition anyway: "a subspace of codimension 1."

So yes, I believe that any subspace $W$ of a vector space $V$ can be called a hyperplane if $\dim(V/W)=1$.


(Added)

This is, of course, equivalent to saying that $W$ is the kernel of a linear functional (if you want to do it that way.)

If $\dim(V/W)=1$, then picking a basis for $W$ and extending it by one element "$v$" to be a basis for $V$ allows you to project onto the coefficient of $v$, obtaining a linear functional from $V$ to $F$ with kernel $W$.

In the other direction, an easy application of isomorphism theorems tells you that for a nonzero linear functional $f$, $V/\ker(f)\cong F$, so $V/\ker(f)$ has dimension $1$, and $\ker(f)$ has codimension $1$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean the above definition is not good? $\endgroup$ – mohamez Nov 6 '13 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohamez. Well, what does it mean $\infty -1$? $\endgroup$ – Agustí Roig Nov 6 '13 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ @AgustíRoig $\infty$ isn't it? $\endgroup$ – mohamez Nov 6 '13 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ I think saying "kernel of a linear functional" is a little fancier than it needs to be, but at any rate that definition is equivalent to the one I gave. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Nov 6 '13 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohamez. So, does it make any sense to define a hyperplane as something having the same dimension as the total space? $\endgroup$ – Agustí Roig Nov 7 '13 at 7:19
1
$\begingroup$

I have seen that this is a very very old question nevertheless I would like to make this little contribution which would be of interest for someone.

I will consider the correct: $H$ is called a hyperplane of a given space $V$ iff $H$ is a subspace of $V$, $H\neq V$ and for any other subspace $W$ of $V$, $H\subset W\implies$ either $H=W$ or $W=X$.

We are then going to prove that: $H=$hyperplane of $V$ iff $dim(V/H)=1$ iff $H=Ker(f)$ for some linear form $f$.

(1) Suppose $H=$hyperplane of $V$ and $dim(V/H)\neq 1$. Sine $H\neq V$, $dim(V/H)\neq 0$. Then $dim(V/H)>1$. Hence there are $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}$ linearly independents in $V/H$ such that $\mathbb{K}\tilde{x}+\mathbb{K}\tilde{y}\subset V/H$. Let $x$ and $y$ be their representers in $V$. It is clear that $x,y\notin H$. The space $W=\mathbb{K}y+H$ is a subspace of $V$ containing $H$. Since $y\neq \overrightarrow{0}$, then $H\neq W$. H being a hyperplane, this condition implies that $W=V\ni x$ therefore $x=k\cdot y+h$ for some $0\neq k\in\mathbb{K}$ and $h\in H$. So $\tilde{x}=k\tilde{y}$ which means that $\tilde{x}$ is proportional to $\tilde{y}$ which is impossible as they are independents.

(2) If $dim(V/H)=1$ then there is a non zero vector $w\in V$ such that $V/H=\mathbb{K}\tilde{w}$. So for all $x\in V$ there is $f(x)\in \mathbb{K}$ such that $\tilde{x}=f(x)\cdot \tilde{w}$. We get the rule $x\overset{f}{\mapsto} f(x)$ from $V$ to $\mathbb{K}$. It is easy to show that $f$ is a linear form and that $H=ker(f)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you it sure helps $\endgroup$ – Psylex May 31 '19 at 14:46
0
$\begingroup$

They are kernels of linear forms thus their codimension is one.

$\endgroup$

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.