The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Orthogonal complement
Replies: 15   Last Post: Mar 5, 2013 6:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Posts: 3,473
Registered: 12/4/04
Re: Orthogonal complement
Posted: Mar 4, 2013 11:19 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In <5134c6c2$12$fuzhry+tra$>, on 03/04/2013
at 11:07 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<> said:

>In <>, on 03/04/2013
> at 07:34 AM, David C. Ullrich <> said:

>>Hmm. According to the definition at

Whoops! I was looking at
<>, although the
definition in <> is

>>your f is _not_ non-degenerate. In the notation used there we have
>>f_1(s)(s) = 0, hence f_1 is not an isomorphism.

>There is a difference between "f_1(s)(s) = 0" and "f_1(s) = 0".
>Check the determinant, then note "If V is finite-dimensional then,
>relative to some basis for V, a bilinear form is degenerate if and
>only if the determinant of the associated matrix is zero ? if and
>only if the matrix is singular, and accordingly degenerate forms are
>also called singular forms. Likewise, a nondegenerate form is one
>for which the associated matrix is non-singular, and accordingly
>nondegenerate forms are also referred to as non-singular forms.
>These statements are independent of the chosen basis."

A relevant quote from the article you cited would be "If V is
finite-dimensional then the rank of B1 is equal to the rank of B2. If
this number is equal to dim(V) then B1 and B2 are linear isomorphisms
from V to V*. In this case B is nondegenerate. By the rank-nullity
theorem, this is equivalent to the condition that the left and
equivalently right radicals be trivial. In fact, for finite
dimensional spaces, this is often taken as the definition of

Definition: B is nondegenerate if and only if B(v, w) = 0 for all
w implies v = 0."

>BTW, I only see "f"; where do you see "f_1".

Looking at the correct article, I see a B_1:V->V* but not an f_1.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.