Showing that $M + N$ is a closed subspace of the Hilbert $H$












2














Exercise :




Let $M, N$ be closed subspaces of the Hilbert space $H$ while it is also assumed that $M bot N$. Show that the set :
$$M + N = {x+y : x in M, y in N}$$
is also a closed subspace of $H$.




Attempt - Thoughts :



First of all, since $M$ and $N$ are closed, this means that if $(x_n)$ is a sequence of elements belonging in $X$ and $(y_n)$ is a sequence of elements belonging in $N$, then :
$$lim x_n = x, quad x in M$$
$$lim y_n = y, quad y in N$$
Now, since it is $M bot N$, then it should also be $langle x, y rangle = 0$.



Now, defining the Hilbert space norm to be $|cdot | = sqrt{langle cdot, cdot rangle}$, it is :



$$|x+y|^2 = |x|^2 + 2langle x,yrangle + |y||^2$$



But since $x bot y$, then : $ |x+y|^2 = |x|^2 + |y|^2 Leftrightarrow |x+y| = sqrt{|x|^2 + |y|^2}$.



In terms of the definition of a closed set, I would need to prove that for $(x_n) in M$ and $(y_n) in N$, then $(x_n + y_n) in M + N$ and $lim (x_n + y_n) in M + N$.



I can't really see though how I could proceed to any conclusions (or if there's a simpler way etc), so I would really appreciate any hints or elaborations










share|cite|improve this question



























    2














    Exercise :




    Let $M, N$ be closed subspaces of the Hilbert space $H$ while it is also assumed that $M bot N$. Show that the set :
    $$M + N = {x+y : x in M, y in N}$$
    is also a closed subspace of $H$.




    Attempt - Thoughts :



    First of all, since $M$ and $N$ are closed, this means that if $(x_n)$ is a sequence of elements belonging in $X$ and $(y_n)$ is a sequence of elements belonging in $N$, then :
    $$lim x_n = x, quad x in M$$
    $$lim y_n = y, quad y in N$$
    Now, since it is $M bot N$, then it should also be $langle x, y rangle = 0$.



    Now, defining the Hilbert space norm to be $|cdot | = sqrt{langle cdot, cdot rangle}$, it is :



    $$|x+y|^2 = |x|^2 + 2langle x,yrangle + |y||^2$$



    But since $x bot y$, then : $ |x+y|^2 = |x|^2 + |y|^2 Leftrightarrow |x+y| = sqrt{|x|^2 + |y|^2}$.



    In terms of the definition of a closed set, I would need to prove that for $(x_n) in M$ and $(y_n) in N$, then $(x_n + y_n) in M + N$ and $lim (x_n + y_n) in M + N$.



    I can't really see though how I could proceed to any conclusions (or if there's a simpler way etc), so I would really appreciate any hints or elaborations










    share|cite|improve this question

























      2












      2








      2







      Exercise :




      Let $M, N$ be closed subspaces of the Hilbert space $H$ while it is also assumed that $M bot N$. Show that the set :
      $$M + N = {x+y : x in M, y in N}$$
      is also a closed subspace of $H$.




      Attempt - Thoughts :



      First of all, since $M$ and $N$ are closed, this means that if $(x_n)$ is a sequence of elements belonging in $X$ and $(y_n)$ is a sequence of elements belonging in $N$, then :
      $$lim x_n = x, quad x in M$$
      $$lim y_n = y, quad y in N$$
      Now, since it is $M bot N$, then it should also be $langle x, y rangle = 0$.



      Now, defining the Hilbert space norm to be $|cdot | = sqrt{langle cdot, cdot rangle}$, it is :



      $$|x+y|^2 = |x|^2 + 2langle x,yrangle + |y||^2$$



      But since $x bot y$, then : $ |x+y|^2 = |x|^2 + |y|^2 Leftrightarrow |x+y| = sqrt{|x|^2 + |y|^2}$.



      In terms of the definition of a closed set, I would need to prove that for $(x_n) in M$ and $(y_n) in N$, then $(x_n + y_n) in M + N$ and $lim (x_n + y_n) in M + N$.



      I can't really see though how I could proceed to any conclusions (or if there's a simpler way etc), so I would really appreciate any hints or elaborations










      share|cite|improve this question













      Exercise :




      Let $M, N$ be closed subspaces of the Hilbert space $H$ while it is also assumed that $M bot N$. Show that the set :
      $$M + N = {x+y : x in M, y in N}$$
      is also a closed subspace of $H$.




      Attempt - Thoughts :



      First of all, since $M$ and $N$ are closed, this means that if $(x_n)$ is a sequence of elements belonging in $X$ and $(y_n)$ is a sequence of elements belonging in $N$, then :
      $$lim x_n = x, quad x in M$$
      $$lim y_n = y, quad y in N$$
      Now, since it is $M bot N$, then it should also be $langle x, y rangle = 0$.



      Now, defining the Hilbert space norm to be $|cdot | = sqrt{langle cdot, cdot rangle}$, it is :



      $$|x+y|^2 = |x|^2 + 2langle x,yrangle + |y||^2$$



      But since $x bot y$, then : $ |x+y|^2 = |x|^2 + |y|^2 Leftrightarrow |x+y| = sqrt{|x|^2 + |y|^2}$.



      In terms of the definition of a closed set, I would need to prove that for $(x_n) in M$ and $(y_n) in N$, then $(x_n + y_n) in M + N$ and $lim (x_n + y_n) in M + N$.



      I can't really see though how I could proceed to any conclusions (or if there's a simpler way etc), so I would really appreciate any hints or elaborations







      real-analysis functional-analysis hilbert-spaces normed-spaces inner-product-space






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 2 at 11:20









      Rebellos

      14.4k31245




      14.4k31245






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Suppose ${x_n} subset M$,${y_n} subset N$ and $x_n+y_nto z$. Then (by orthogonality) $|(x_n-x_m) -(y_n-y_m)|^{2}=|x_n-x_m|^{2}+|y_n-y_m|^{2} to 0$ so both ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy. If these sequences converge to $x$ and $y$ respectively the $x in M, yin N$ and $z=x+y in M+N$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Accurate ! I just used it as an answer to my post like 12 seconds before you posted it haha ! +1 anyway !
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:50





















          2














          $M=(M^perp)^perp$ and $N=(N^perp)^perp$. Then $M+N=(M^perpcap N^perp)^perp$. As the perpendicular complement of a subspace is always closed, then
          $M+N$ is closed.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Meh, so simple and easy taking advantage of that. Thanks for the elegant elaboration. I guess it's a fact of experience finding always alternative short paths for proofs rather that working around definitions !
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:33










          • Just a question though, why would it be : $M + N = (M^bot cap N^bot)bot $ in terms of a rigorous explanation, so I can fully understand it mathematically ?
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:39












          • I think this answer uses unnecessary theorems. The result can be proved from definitions.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 2 at 11:50



















          2














          You can as well run through the definitions.
          Assume ${x_n+y_n}_{n=1}^{infty}subseteq M+N$ a Cauchy sequence then using $Mperp N$ gives
          $$langle x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m),x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m)rangle=langle x_n-x_m,x_n-x_mrangle +langle y_n-y_m,y_n-y_mranglerightarrow 0$$
          as $n,mrightarrowinfty$ from which You can conclude that ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy sequences and thus have limits $xin M$ and $yin N$ respectively since $M$ and $N$ are closed.
          Since for the considered sequences one has $langle x_n-x,x_n-xranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrow infty$ and $langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrowinfty$, You can conclude
          $$langle x_n+y_n-(x+y),x_n+y_n-(x+y)rangle=langle x_n-x,x_n-xrangle +langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0$$
          as $nrightarrowinfty$ and thus $M+N$ is closed.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • True, just answered it myself below like 45 seconds ago! Thanks for the cross-validation! +1 anyway
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:50





















          1














          Worked around the following answer :



          Let $(z_n)$ be a convergent sequence in $M + N$. Then we can write $z_n = underbrace{x_n}_{in M} +underbrace{y_n}_{in N}$.



          But $M perp N $ we have $| z_n |^2 = |x_n |^2 +|y_n|^2$ by the Pythagoreian Theorem, since $langle x_n,y_nrangle = 0$ .



          Now, the sequence $(z_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, which means that :
          $$ |x_n -x_m|^2 +|y_n -y_m|^2 = | z_n -z_m|^2 rightarrow 0$$



          since $x_n to x$ and $ y_nto y$ for some $xin M $ , $y in N $ since they are both closed spaces . It then follows that $$lim z_n = z = x+y in N + M $$
          thus the space $N+M$ is a closed subspace of $H$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022516%2fshowing-that-m-n-is-a-closed-subspace-of-the-hilbert-h%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            Suppose ${x_n} subset M$,${y_n} subset N$ and $x_n+y_nto z$. Then (by orthogonality) $|(x_n-x_m) -(y_n-y_m)|^{2}=|x_n-x_m|^{2}+|y_n-y_m|^{2} to 0$ so both ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy. If these sequences converge to $x$ and $y$ respectively the $x in M, yin N$ and $z=x+y in M+N$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Accurate ! I just used it as an answer to my post like 12 seconds before you posted it haha ! +1 anyway !
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:50


















            2














            Suppose ${x_n} subset M$,${y_n} subset N$ and $x_n+y_nto z$. Then (by orthogonality) $|(x_n-x_m) -(y_n-y_m)|^{2}=|x_n-x_m|^{2}+|y_n-y_m|^{2} to 0$ so both ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy. If these sequences converge to $x$ and $y$ respectively the $x in M, yin N$ and $z=x+y in M+N$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Accurate ! I just used it as an answer to my post like 12 seconds before you posted it haha ! +1 anyway !
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:50
















            2












            2








            2






            Suppose ${x_n} subset M$,${y_n} subset N$ and $x_n+y_nto z$. Then (by orthogonality) $|(x_n-x_m) -(y_n-y_m)|^{2}=|x_n-x_m|^{2}+|y_n-y_m|^{2} to 0$ so both ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy. If these sequences converge to $x$ and $y$ respectively the $x in M, yin N$ and $z=x+y in M+N$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Suppose ${x_n} subset M$,${y_n} subset N$ and $x_n+y_nto z$. Then (by orthogonality) $|(x_n-x_m) -(y_n-y_m)|^{2}=|x_n-x_m|^{2}+|y_n-y_m|^{2} to 0$ so both ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy. If these sequences converge to $x$ and $y$ respectively the $x in M, yin N$ and $z=x+y in M+N$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 2 at 11:49









            Kavi Rama Murthy

            49.9k31854




            49.9k31854












            • Accurate ! I just used it as an answer to my post like 12 seconds before you posted it haha ! +1 anyway !
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:50




















            • Accurate ! I just used it as an answer to my post like 12 seconds before you posted it haha ! +1 anyway !
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:50


















            Accurate ! I just used it as an answer to my post like 12 seconds before you posted it haha ! +1 anyway !
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:50






            Accurate ! I just used it as an answer to my post like 12 seconds before you posted it haha ! +1 anyway !
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:50













            2














            $M=(M^perp)^perp$ and $N=(N^perp)^perp$. Then $M+N=(M^perpcap N^perp)^perp$. As the perpendicular complement of a subspace is always closed, then
            $M+N$ is closed.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Meh, so simple and easy taking advantage of that. Thanks for the elegant elaboration. I guess it's a fact of experience finding always alternative short paths for proofs rather that working around definitions !
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:33










            • Just a question though, why would it be : $M + N = (M^bot cap N^bot)bot $ in terms of a rigorous explanation, so I can fully understand it mathematically ?
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:39












            • I think this answer uses unnecessary theorems. The result can be proved from definitions.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 2 at 11:50
















            2














            $M=(M^perp)^perp$ and $N=(N^perp)^perp$. Then $M+N=(M^perpcap N^perp)^perp$. As the perpendicular complement of a subspace is always closed, then
            $M+N$ is closed.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Meh, so simple and easy taking advantage of that. Thanks for the elegant elaboration. I guess it's a fact of experience finding always alternative short paths for proofs rather that working around definitions !
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:33










            • Just a question though, why would it be : $M + N = (M^bot cap N^bot)bot $ in terms of a rigorous explanation, so I can fully understand it mathematically ?
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:39












            • I think this answer uses unnecessary theorems. The result can be proved from definitions.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 2 at 11:50














            2












            2








            2






            $M=(M^perp)^perp$ and $N=(N^perp)^perp$. Then $M+N=(M^perpcap N^perp)^perp$. As the perpendicular complement of a subspace is always closed, then
            $M+N$ is closed.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            $M=(M^perp)^perp$ and $N=(N^perp)^perp$. Then $M+N=(M^perpcap N^perp)^perp$. As the perpendicular complement of a subspace is always closed, then
            $M+N$ is closed.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 2 at 11:30









            Lord Shark the Unknown

            101k958132




            101k958132












            • Meh, so simple and easy taking advantage of that. Thanks for the elegant elaboration. I guess it's a fact of experience finding always alternative short paths for proofs rather that working around definitions !
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:33










            • Just a question though, why would it be : $M + N = (M^bot cap N^bot)bot $ in terms of a rigorous explanation, so I can fully understand it mathematically ?
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:39












            • I think this answer uses unnecessary theorems. The result can be proved from definitions.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 2 at 11:50


















            • Meh, so simple and easy taking advantage of that. Thanks for the elegant elaboration. I guess it's a fact of experience finding always alternative short paths for proofs rather that working around definitions !
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:33










            • Just a question though, why would it be : $M + N = (M^bot cap N^bot)bot $ in terms of a rigorous explanation, so I can fully understand it mathematically ?
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:39












            • I think this answer uses unnecessary theorems. The result can be proved from definitions.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 2 at 11:50
















            Meh, so simple and easy taking advantage of that. Thanks for the elegant elaboration. I guess it's a fact of experience finding always alternative short paths for proofs rather that working around definitions !
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:33




            Meh, so simple and easy taking advantage of that. Thanks for the elegant elaboration. I guess it's a fact of experience finding always alternative short paths for proofs rather that working around definitions !
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:33












            Just a question though, why would it be : $M + N = (M^bot cap N^bot)bot $ in terms of a rigorous explanation, so I can fully understand it mathematically ?
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:39






            Just a question though, why would it be : $M + N = (M^bot cap N^bot)bot $ in terms of a rigorous explanation, so I can fully understand it mathematically ?
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:39














            I think this answer uses unnecessary theorems. The result can be proved from definitions.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 2 at 11:50




            I think this answer uses unnecessary theorems. The result can be proved from definitions.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 2 at 11:50











            2














            You can as well run through the definitions.
            Assume ${x_n+y_n}_{n=1}^{infty}subseteq M+N$ a Cauchy sequence then using $Mperp N$ gives
            $$langle x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m),x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m)rangle=langle x_n-x_m,x_n-x_mrangle +langle y_n-y_m,y_n-y_mranglerightarrow 0$$
            as $n,mrightarrowinfty$ from which You can conclude that ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy sequences and thus have limits $xin M$ and $yin N$ respectively since $M$ and $N$ are closed.
            Since for the considered sequences one has $langle x_n-x,x_n-xranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrow infty$ and $langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrowinfty$, You can conclude
            $$langle x_n+y_n-(x+y),x_n+y_n-(x+y)rangle=langle x_n-x,x_n-xrangle +langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0$$
            as $nrightarrowinfty$ and thus $M+N$ is closed.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • True, just answered it myself below like 45 seconds ago! Thanks for the cross-validation! +1 anyway
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:50


















            2














            You can as well run through the definitions.
            Assume ${x_n+y_n}_{n=1}^{infty}subseteq M+N$ a Cauchy sequence then using $Mperp N$ gives
            $$langle x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m),x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m)rangle=langle x_n-x_m,x_n-x_mrangle +langle y_n-y_m,y_n-y_mranglerightarrow 0$$
            as $n,mrightarrowinfty$ from which You can conclude that ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy sequences and thus have limits $xin M$ and $yin N$ respectively since $M$ and $N$ are closed.
            Since for the considered sequences one has $langle x_n-x,x_n-xranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrow infty$ and $langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrowinfty$, You can conclude
            $$langle x_n+y_n-(x+y),x_n+y_n-(x+y)rangle=langle x_n-x,x_n-xrangle +langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0$$
            as $nrightarrowinfty$ and thus $M+N$ is closed.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • True, just answered it myself below like 45 seconds ago! Thanks for the cross-validation! +1 anyway
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:50
















            2












            2








            2






            You can as well run through the definitions.
            Assume ${x_n+y_n}_{n=1}^{infty}subseteq M+N$ a Cauchy sequence then using $Mperp N$ gives
            $$langle x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m),x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m)rangle=langle x_n-x_m,x_n-x_mrangle +langle y_n-y_m,y_n-y_mranglerightarrow 0$$
            as $n,mrightarrowinfty$ from which You can conclude that ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy sequences and thus have limits $xin M$ and $yin N$ respectively since $M$ and $N$ are closed.
            Since for the considered sequences one has $langle x_n-x,x_n-xranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrow infty$ and $langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrowinfty$, You can conclude
            $$langle x_n+y_n-(x+y),x_n+y_n-(x+y)rangle=langle x_n-x,x_n-xrangle +langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0$$
            as $nrightarrowinfty$ and thus $M+N$ is closed.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            You can as well run through the definitions.
            Assume ${x_n+y_n}_{n=1}^{infty}subseteq M+N$ a Cauchy sequence then using $Mperp N$ gives
            $$langle x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m),x_n+y_n-(x_m+y_m)rangle=langle x_n-x_m,x_n-x_mrangle +langle y_n-y_m,y_n-y_mranglerightarrow 0$$
            as $n,mrightarrowinfty$ from which You can conclude that ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy sequences and thus have limits $xin M$ and $yin N$ respectively since $M$ and $N$ are closed.
            Since for the considered sequences one has $langle x_n-x,x_n-xranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrow infty$ and $langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0,nrightarrowinfty$, You can conclude
            $$langle x_n+y_n-(x+y),x_n+y_n-(x+y)rangle=langle x_n-x,x_n-xrangle +langle y_n-y,y_n-yranglerightarrow 0$$
            as $nrightarrowinfty$ and thus $M+N$ is closed.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 2 at 12:09

























            answered Dec 2 at 11:49









            Peter Melech

            2,554813




            2,554813












            • True, just answered it myself below like 45 seconds ago! Thanks for the cross-validation! +1 anyway
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:50




















            • True, just answered it myself below like 45 seconds ago! Thanks for the cross-validation! +1 anyway
              – Rebellos
              Dec 2 at 11:50


















            True, just answered it myself below like 45 seconds ago! Thanks for the cross-validation! +1 anyway
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:50






            True, just answered it myself below like 45 seconds ago! Thanks for the cross-validation! +1 anyway
            – Rebellos
            Dec 2 at 11:50













            1














            Worked around the following answer :



            Let $(z_n)$ be a convergent sequence in $M + N$. Then we can write $z_n = underbrace{x_n}_{in M} +underbrace{y_n}_{in N}$.



            But $M perp N $ we have $| z_n |^2 = |x_n |^2 +|y_n|^2$ by the Pythagoreian Theorem, since $langle x_n,y_nrangle = 0$ .



            Now, the sequence $(z_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, which means that :
            $$ |x_n -x_m|^2 +|y_n -y_m|^2 = | z_n -z_m|^2 rightarrow 0$$



            since $x_n to x$ and $ y_nto y$ for some $xin M $ , $y in N $ since they are both closed spaces . It then follows that $$lim z_n = z = x+y in N + M $$
            thus the space $N+M$ is a closed subspace of $H$.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              Worked around the following answer :



              Let $(z_n)$ be a convergent sequence in $M + N$. Then we can write $z_n = underbrace{x_n}_{in M} +underbrace{y_n}_{in N}$.



              But $M perp N $ we have $| z_n |^2 = |x_n |^2 +|y_n|^2$ by the Pythagoreian Theorem, since $langle x_n,y_nrangle = 0$ .



              Now, the sequence $(z_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, which means that :
              $$ |x_n -x_m|^2 +|y_n -y_m|^2 = | z_n -z_m|^2 rightarrow 0$$



              since $x_n to x$ and $ y_nto y$ for some $xin M $ , $y in N $ since they are both closed spaces . It then follows that $$lim z_n = z = x+y in N + M $$
              thus the space $N+M$ is a closed subspace of $H$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                Worked around the following answer :



                Let $(z_n)$ be a convergent sequence in $M + N$. Then we can write $z_n = underbrace{x_n}_{in M} +underbrace{y_n}_{in N}$.



                But $M perp N $ we have $| z_n |^2 = |x_n |^2 +|y_n|^2$ by the Pythagoreian Theorem, since $langle x_n,y_nrangle = 0$ .



                Now, the sequence $(z_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, which means that :
                $$ |x_n -x_m|^2 +|y_n -y_m|^2 = | z_n -z_m|^2 rightarrow 0$$



                since $x_n to x$ and $ y_nto y$ for some $xin M $ , $y in N $ since they are both closed spaces . It then follows that $$lim z_n = z = x+y in N + M $$
                thus the space $N+M$ is a closed subspace of $H$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Worked around the following answer :



                Let $(z_n)$ be a convergent sequence in $M + N$. Then we can write $z_n = underbrace{x_n}_{in M} +underbrace{y_n}_{in N}$.



                But $M perp N $ we have $| z_n |^2 = |x_n |^2 +|y_n|^2$ by the Pythagoreian Theorem, since $langle x_n,y_nrangle = 0$ .



                Now, the sequence $(z_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, which means that :
                $$ |x_n -x_m|^2 +|y_n -y_m|^2 = | z_n -z_m|^2 rightarrow 0$$



                since $x_n to x$ and $ y_nto y$ for some $xin M $ , $y in N $ since they are both closed spaces . It then follows that $$lim z_n = z = x+y in N + M $$
                thus the space $N+M$ is a closed subspace of $H$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 2 at 11:49









                Rebellos

                14.4k31245




                14.4k31245






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022516%2fshowing-that-m-n-is-a-closed-subspace-of-the-hilbert-h%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Berounka

                    Sphinx de Gizeh

                    Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...