## Orthogonal Complements and the Lattice of Subspaces

We know that the poset of subspaces of a vector space is a lattice. Now we can define complementary subspaces in a way that doesn’t depend on any choice of basis at all. So what does this look like in terms of the lattice?

First off, remember that the “meet” of two subspaces is their intersection, which is again a subspace. On the other hand their “join” is their sum as subspaces. But now we have a new operation called the “complement”. In general lattice-theory terms, a complement of an element in a bounded lattice (one that has a top element and a bottom element ) is an element so that and .

In particular, since the top subspace is itself, and the bottom subspace is we can see that the orthogonal complement satisfies these properties. The intersection is trivial, since the inner product is positive-definite as a bilinear form, and the sum is all of , as we’ve seen.

Even more is true. The orthogonal complement is involutive (when is finite-dimensional), and order-reversing, which makes it an “orthocomplement”. In lattice-theory terms, this means that , and that if then .

First, let’s say we’ve got two subspaces of . I say that . Indeed, if is a vector in then it for all . But since any is also a vector in , we can see that , and so as well. Thus orthogonal complementation is

Now let’s take a single subspace of , and let be a vector in . If is any vector in , then by the (conjugate) symmetry of the inner product and the definition of . Thus is a vector in , and so . Note that this much holds whether is finite-dimensional or not.

On the other hand, if is finite-dimensional we can take an orthonormal basis of and expand it into an orthonormal basis of all of . Then the new vectors form a basis of , so that . A vector in is orthogonal to every vector in exactly when it can be written using only the first basis vectors, and thus lies in . That is, when is finite-dimensional.

[…] I want to prove two equations that hold in any orthocomplemented lattice. They are the famous DeMorgan’s […]

Pingback by DeMorgan’s Laws « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 8, 2009 |

[…] . Clearly the symmetry of the situation shows us that we only need to check one direction. So if , we know that , and also that . And thus we see that […]

Pingback by Orthogonal Complementation is a Galois Connection « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 19, 2009 |

[…] subspace they span. The kernel of is contained in the kernel of , and orthogonal complements are order-reversing, which means that must lie within the span of the . That is, there must be real numbers so […]

Pingback by Extrema with Constraints I « The Unapologetic Mathematician | November 25, 2009 |

[…] can push further and make this into an orthocomplemented lattice. We define the orthocomplement of an idempotent […]

Pingback by Characteristic Functions as Idempotents « The Unapologetic Mathematician | December 23, 2009 |

[…] We’ve seen before that the power set — the set of all the subsets of — is an orthocomplemented lattice. That is, we can take meets (intersections) , joins (unions) and complements of subsets […]

Pingback by Algebras of Sets « The Unapologetic Mathematician | March 15, 2010 |

Two minor remarks:

“The intersection is empty”

0 is in it, so it’s not really “empty”.

In the 2nd line from below, I think should read .

Comment by wildildildlife | August 29, 2010 |

Yes, “trivial” would be better, and the thing was an oversight. Thanks.

Comment by John Armstrong | August 29, 2010 |