Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a linear subspace of the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^N$. Is $\mathcal{S}$ necessarily closed?
Asked
Active
Viewed 515 times
0
-
6Yes. Hint: Singletons are closed, and linear subspaces are preimages of singletons. – Tobias Kildetoft Aug 14 '18 at 17:32
-
1What do you think? What have you tried? – mfl Aug 14 '18 at 17:36
-
Just to fix my mind. Do you mean a vector subspace, don't you? – Dog_69 Aug 14 '18 at 17:36
-
Thanks for your answer. I am an engineer, could you please give me a more intuitive hint if it is possible. – Bashir Sadeghi Aug 14 '18 at 17:36
-
Yes, I mean vector subspaces. – Bashir Sadeghi Aug 14 '18 at 17:38
-
1Another basic (and rudimentary) approach is to start from the definitions, and use the fact that all norms are equivalent in finite-dimensional vector space in [tag:functional-analysis]. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Aug 14 '18 at 17:40
-
1Hint toward another approach: construct a basis for the subspace. Note the basis must be finite. Then consider possible limit points of sequences in the subspace. – BallBoy Aug 14 '18 at 17:45
-
1Then, according to Wiki for each $n\in \mathbb N$ there is one and only one (up to isomorphism [I guess homeomorphism]) topological vector space. It follows from this that any finite-dimensional vector subspace of a topological vector space is closed." – Dog_69 Aug 14 '18 at 17:49
2 Answers
3
Indeed, vector subspaces are closed. Here's an explanation that you might find intuitive.
Let $P$ denote the (orthogonal) projection onto $\mathcal S^\perp$, the orthogonal complement of $\mathcal S$. Of course, $x$ is an element of $S$ if and only if $Px = 0$. Moreover, $P$ is a continuous map.
It follows that if $\{x_n\}$ is a sequence of points from $\mathcal S$ converging to $x$, then $Px_n$ must converge to $Px$. Since $Px_n = 0$ for all elements $x_n$, we must have $Px = 0$, and thus $x \in \mathcal S$.
So, whenever $x_n$ is a convergent sequence of points in $\mathcal S$ with limit $x$, we have $x \in \mathcal S$. Thus, $\mathcal S$ is a closed set.
Ben Grossmann
- 225,327
-
1The terser version of this argument is what Tobias said, namely that $P^{-1}({0})$ must be closed. – Ben Grossmann Aug 14 '18 at 17:48
-
-
1@BashirSadeghi indeed: in a finite dimensional normed vector space (such as a Euclidean space), every linear subspace is closed. In infinite dimensional spaces, the projection map $P$ might not be continuous or well-defined. – Ben Grossmann Aug 14 '18 at 17:53
2
If you pick the basis correctly, the every linear subspace $W$ of $\mathbb R^N$ just looks like
$$W = \{ (x_1, ... , x_t,0, ... , 0) \in \mathbb R^n \}$$
which is a closed subset of $\mathbb R^N$.
D_S
- 33,891
-
Such a change of basis will not generally preserve the Euclidean (i.e. inner-product) structure on $\Bbb R^N$, so a more flexible definition of the topology may be needed – Ben Grossmann Aug 14 '18 at 18:05