Solution
ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2013/iii/paper-36/4/a/solution
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 iii Paper 36 4 a Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
Interpret the angle as the directed subspace angle defined by the infimum of projected unit vectors; it is different from the smallest angle between two subspaces. WriteConsider the bounded linear operator given by . Its adjoint operator, between these two Hilbert spaces, is : for and , the orthogonal projections give . The two positive directed subspace angle cosines yieldThe first bound makes injective and gives a closed range. Explicitly, if converges, then , so is a Cauchy sequence. The closed subspace of a Hilbert space is complete, and its limit maps to the proposed range limit. The second bound gives . A vector orthogonal to the range has , so it must be zero. The range is therefore dense as well as closed in , and is onto. This is the mechanism of invertibility from lower bounds on an operator and its adjoint.
For any , choose the unique with . Then , so . Moreover, if , then and hence . Every vector has a unique decomposition, andThe direct sum is a topological one as well: the component depends boundedly on , with operator norm at most .
For precision, the quoted equality of the norms of complementary oblique projections needs both summands nonzero. For example, with , and , the oblique projection is , so but . The secant function has value one here, so the second equality in the quoted formula fails. With nonzero complementary summands its intended version is valid. The proof above does not use that formula. The angle itself is undefined on a zero source space because it has no unit vectors; expressing the hypotheses as the two lower bounds handles zero spaces without ambiguity.
New to topics? Read the docs here!