Homomorphic Sensing of Subspace Arrangements

Liangzu Peng and Manolis C. Tsakiris

arXiv: 2006.05158v4 · PDF · 19 September 2022
Categories: cs.LG, math.AG, stat.ML
Journal: Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 55, 466-485 (2021)
DOI: 10.1016/j.acha.2021.06.008
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Homomorphic sensing is a recent algebraic-geometric framework that studies the unique recovery of points in a linear subspace from their images under a given collection of linear maps. It has been successful in interpreting such a recovery in the case of permutations composed by coordinate projections, an important instance in applications known as unlabeled sensing, which models data that are out of order and have missing values. In this paper, we provide tighter and simpler conditions that guarantee the unique recovery for the single-subspace case, extend the result to the case of a subspace arrangement, and show that the unique recovery in a single subspace is locally stable under noise. We specialize our results to several examples of homomorphic sensing such as real phase retrieval and unlabeled sensing. In so doing, in a unified way, we obtain conditions that guarantee the unique recovery for those examples, typically known via diverse techniques in the literature, as well as novel conditions for sparse and unsigned versions of unlabeled sensing. Similarly, our noise result also implies that the unique recovery in unlabeled sensing is locally stable.

Items 30

Definition

Definition 1 (homomorphic sensing property)

IBOT

Let \mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{H}^n be a set of vectors and \mathcal{T} a finite set of linear maps \mathbb{H}^n\to \mathbb{H}^m. We say that \mathcal{X} and \mathcal{T} satisfy the “homomorphic sensing property”, denoted by \operatorname{hsp}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{T}), if the following holds:

\begin{aligned} \operatorname{hsp}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{T}):\ \ \forall v_1,v_2\in\mathcal{X}, \forall \tau_1,\tau_2\in\mathcal{T}, \ \ \tau_1(v_1)=\tau_2(v_2) \Rightarrow v_1=v_2. \end{aligned}

If \tau_1(v_1)=\tau_2(v_2) only implies v_1=\pm v_2, then we will use the notation \operatorname{hsp}_\pm(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{T}).

Theorem

Theorem 1 (homomorphic sensing of a single subspace)

DC6L

Suppose \operatorname{rank}(\tau)\geq 2d for every \tau\in\mathcal{T}. Then \operatorname{hsp}(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{T}) holds true for a generic subspace \mathcal{V} of \mathbb{H}^n of dimension d whenever

\begin{aligned} d \leq \operatorname{codim}(\mathcal{U}_{\tau_1,\tau_2}),\ \ \ \forall \tau_1,\tau_2\in\mathcal{T}. \end{aligned}

Used by Remark 1, Proposition 3, Proposition 4

Proposition

Proposition 1

LWU7

Suppose \mathbb{H}=\mathbb{C} and that (1) is not true. Then \operatorname{hsp}(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{T}) is violated for a generic subspace \mathcal{V}\subset\mathbb{H}^n of dimension d.

Proposition

Proposition 2

LSD3

Suppose that for every \tau\in\mathcal{T} we have \operatorname{rank}(\tau)\geq 2d. Let \mathcal{U}^\pm_{\tau_1,\tau_2}:=\mathcal{U}_{\tau_1,\tau_2}\backslash \ker(\overline{\tau}_1 +\overline{\tau}_2). Then \operatorname{hsp}_\pm(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{T}) holds true for a generic subspace \mathcal{V} of \mathbb{H}^n of dimension d whenever

\begin{aligned} d \le \operatorname{codim}(\mathcal{U}^\pm_{\tau_1,\tau_2}),\ \ \ \forall \tau_1,\tau_2\in\mathcal{T}. \end{aligned}

Theorem

Theorem 2 (homomorphic sensing of a subspace arrangement)

XXSE

Let (d_1,\dots,d_\ell) be a dimension configuration and \mathscr{I}=(\mathcal{I}_1,\dots,\mathcal{I}_s) an ordered set of subsets of [\ell]. Let d:=\max_{j\in[s]} d_{\mathcal{I}_j}. Suppose \operatorname{rank}(\tau)\geq 2d for every \tau\in\mathcal{T}. Then \operatorname{hsp}(\overline{\mathcal{A}_{\mathscr{I}}},\mathcal{T}) holds for a generic subspace arrangement \mathcal{A}=(\mathcal{V}_1,\dots,\mathcal{V}_{\ell}) with \dim(\mathcal{V}_i)=d_i, whenever (1) holds. Similarly, \operatorname{hsp}_\pm(\overline{\mathcal{A}_{\mathscr{I}}},\mathcal{T}) holds for a generic subspace arrangement (\mathcal{V}_1,\dots,\mathcal{V}_{\ell}) with \dim(\mathcal{V}_i)=d_i, whenever (2) holds.

Used by Remark 1

Remark

Remark 1

QKXH

Affine subspaces are very important in applications, because data tend to come biased away from the origin; see for example the case of affine real phase retrieval [Gao-AAM2018] or arrangements of affine subspaces in clustering [Tsakiris-TPAMI2018]. Given an affine subspace \mathcal{V}+b of \mathbb{H}^n one obtains immediately a result about \operatorname{hsp}(\mathcal{V}+b,\mathcal{T}) by applying Theorem 1 to the (d+1)-dimensional linear subspace \mathcal{V}+\operatorname{Span}(b). One obtains a homomorphic sensing result for an arrangement of affine subspaces in a similar manner by applying Theorem 2 to (\mathcal{V}_1 + b_1,\dots,\mathcal{V}_\ell+b_\ell). An approach which takes into explicit consideration the nature of the affine subspaces will be considered in a future manuscript.

Uses Theorem 1, Theorem 2

Theorem

Theorem 3 (noisy homomorphic sensing)

E9UV

Let \mathcal{V}\subset\mathbb{H}^{n} be a subspace of dimension d that satisfies \operatorname{hsp}(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{T}) and let V\in\mathbb{H}^{n\times d} be a matrix that has \mathcal{V} as its column-space. Let (\hat{\tau},\hat{v}) be a solution to (?) with \hat{T} the matrix representation of \hat{\tau}. Set \mathcal{T}_1:=\{\tau\in\mathcal{T}:y\in\tau(\mathcal{V})\}. If \mathcal{T} = \mathcal{T}_1 or

\begin{aligned} 2\|\epsilon\|_{#2}<\|y\|_{#2}\Big(1-\max_{\tau\in\mathcal{T}\backslash\mathcal{T}_1}\cos\big(y,\tau(\mathcal{V})\big)\Big), \end{aligned}

then \hat{v} - v^*=V(\hat{T} V)^{\dagger}\epsilon, where (\hat{T} V)^{\dagger} is the pseudoinverse of \hat{T} V. In particular \|\hat{v} - v^*\|_2 \leq \sigma(V(\hat{T} V)^{\dagger}) \|\epsilon\|_2.

Theorem

Theorem 4 (unlabeled sensing and real phase retrieval)

QCBK

For a generic matrix A of \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}

m\geq 2n\Rightarrow\operatorname{hsp}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathcal{S}_m A) [Tsakiris-ICML2019, Unnikrishnan-TIT18, Han-ACHA2018, Dokmanic-SPL2019].
r\geq 2n\Rightarrow\operatorname{hsp}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathcal{S}_{r,m} A) [Tsakiris-ICML2019, Unnikrishnan-TIT18, Han-ACHA2018].
m\geq 2n\Rightarrow \operatorname{hsp}_{\pm}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathcal{B}_m A) [Balan-ACHA2006, Dokmanic-SPL2019].
r\geq 2n\Rightarrow\operatorname{hsp}_{\pm}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathcal{S}_{r,m}\mathcal{B}_m A) [Tsakiris-ICML2019, Lv-ACM2018].

Theorem

Theorem 5 (sparse unlabeled sensing and sparse real phase retrieval)

3TTJ

For a generic matrix A of \mathbb{R}^{m\times n} and k\leq n

m\geq 2k\Rightarrow\operatorname{hsp}(\overline{\mathcal{K}_{\mathscr{I}}},\mathcal{S}_m A).
r\geq 2k\Rightarrow\operatorname{hsp}(\overline{\mathcal{K}_{\mathscr{I}}},\mathcal{S}_{r,m} A).
m\geq 2k\Rightarrow \operatorname{hsp}_{\pm}(\overline{\mathcal{K}_{\mathscr{I}}},\mathcal{B}_m A) [Wang-ACHA2014, Akccakaya-arXiv2013v2].
r\geq 2k\Rightarrow\operatorname{hsp}_{\pm}(\overline{\mathcal{K}_{\mathscr{I}}},\mathcal{S}_{r,m}\mathcal{B}_m A).

Corollary

Corollary 1

KQRG

If (3) holds with \mathcal{T}=\mathcal{S}_{r,m} and if A satisfies \operatorname{hsp}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathcal{S}_{r,m}A), then \hat{x}-x^*=(\hat{T} A)^{\dagger}\epsilon.

Lemma

Lemma 1

O3AY

Let \phi: \operatorname{F}_{\mathbb{H}}(d_0,d,n) \rightarrow \operatorname{Gr}_{\mathbb{H}}(d,n) be the canonical projection that sends (\mathcal{V}_0,\mathcal{V}) to \mathcal{V}. If \mathscr{U} is a non-empty Zariski open subset of \operatorname{F}_{\mathbb{H}}(d_0,d,n), then the image \phi(\mathscr{U}) contains a non-empty Zariski open subset of \operatorname{Gr}_{\mathbb{H}}(d,n).

Lemma

Lemma 2

O7DR

Given algebraic varieties \mathcal{Q}_1,\dots,\mathcal{Q}_t in \mathbb{C}^n of dimensions r_1,\dots,r_t, each defined by homogeneous polynomials, there exists a \mathbb{C}-subspace \mathcal{V} \in \operatorname{Gr}_{\mathbb{C}}(d,n) with \dim(\mathcal{Q}_j\cap\mathcal{V})=\max\{r_j+d-n,0\} for any j\in[t].

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof

Lemma

Lemma 3

PHU2

Let 0 \subsetneq \mathcal{Z}\subset \mathcal{Y} be two algebraic varieties of \mathbb{C}^n defined by homogeneous polynomials. If \dim(\mathcal{Y}\backslash \mathcal{Z})>n-d, then a generic subspace \mathcal{V}\subset \mathbb{C}^n of dimension d intersects \mathcal{Y}\backslash \mathcal{Z}.

Lemma

Lemma 4

AVSH

Let n,d be positive integers with n \ge 2d. Let \tau: \mathbb{C}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^n be a \mathbb{C}-linear map with \dim(\mathscr{E}_{\tau,\lambda})\leq n-d for every \lambda \in \mathbb{C}. Then there is a \mathbb{C}-subspace \mathcal{V} of \mathbb{C}^n of dimension d such that \dim(\mathcal{V}+\tau(\mathcal{V}))=2d.

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 5

F2UP

Let \Pi_1,\Pi_2\in\mathcal{S}_m, S_1,S_2\in\mathcal{S}_{r,m}, and B_1,B_2\in\mathcal{B}_m be permutations, rank-r selections, and sign matrices, respectively.

m\geq 2n\Rightarrow \dim(\mathcal{U}_{\Pi_1,\Pi_2})\leq m-n.
r\geq 2n\Rightarrow\dim(\mathcal{U}_{S_1,S_2})\leq m-n.
m\geq 2n\Rightarrow \dim(\mathcal{U}_{B_1,B_2}^{\pm})\leq m-n.
r\geq 2n\Rightarrow \dim(\mathcal{U}_{S_1B_1,S_2B_2}^{\pm})\leq m-n.

Proposition

Proposition 3

FGWC

In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 1, further assume \dim (\mathscr{E}_{(\tau_1,\tau_2),1})\leq n-d. Then there is an n-dimensional subspace \mathcal{V}^* of \mathbb{H}^n which satisfies \dim (\tau_1(\mathcal{V}^*)+\tau_2(\mathcal{V}^*))=2d.

Uses Theorem 1 · Used by Lemma 8, Lemma 9, Lemma 10, Lemma 11, Lemma 12

Proposition

Proposition 4

PQ4Z

In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 1, suppose \dim(\mathscr{E}_{(\tau_1,\tau_2),1})=n-d_0>n-d. There are two subspaces \mathcal{V}_0^* \subset \mathcal{V}^* of \mathbb{H}^n of dimension d_0 and d respectively so that \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{V}_0^*)+\tau_2(\mathcal{V}^*))=d_0+d.

Uses Theorem 1

Lemma

Lemma 6

UNRO

For any non-negative integer j we have i) \mathcal{R}_{j+1}\subset \mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j \subset\mathcal{R}_j, ii) \mathcal{F}_{j+1}\subset \mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j\subset \mathcal{F}_j, iii) \mathcal{G}_{j+2}\subset\mathcal{G}_{j+1} and iv) \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_{j+1})=\tau_2(\mathcal{F}_{j+1})=\mathcal{G}_{j+1}.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 6

i) and ii) are directly by definition and so is \mathcal{R}_{j+1}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j+1}\subset \mathcal{R}_{j}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j}. This latter implies

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{G}_{j+2}=\tau_1(\mathcal{R}_{j+1}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j+1})\cap\tau_2(\mathcal{R}_{j+1}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j+1})\subset \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)\cap \tau_2(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)=\mathcal{G}_{j+1}. \end{aligned}

We now show that \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_{j+1})= \mathcal{G}_{j+1}. From \mathcal{R}_{j+1}\subset \tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_{j+1}) we have \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_{j+1})\subset \tau_1(\tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_{j+1})) \subset \mathcal{G}_{j+1}. For the reverse direction \mathcal{G}_{j+1}\subset \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_{j+1}) let z\in\mathcal{G}_{j+1}= \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)\cap \tau_2(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j). In particular z\in\tau_1(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j) so there is some w\in\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j with \tau_1(w)=z. Then w\in\tau_1^{-1}(z)\cap \mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j. But \tau_1^{-1}(z)\subset\tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_{j+1}) and so w\in\tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_{j+1})\cap \mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j=\mathcal{R}_{j+1}. Hence z\in\tau_1(\mathcal{R}_{j+1}). A similar derivation gives \tau_2(\mathcal{F}_{j+1})=\mathcal{G}_{j+1}.

Lemma

Lemma 7

C74B

There is a non-negative integer \alpha such that \mathcal{R}_{j}=\mathcal{F}_{j} for every j \ge \alpha and \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha})=\tau_2(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha}) =\mathcal{G}_\alpha.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 7

Since the subspaces \mathcal{R}_0 and \mathcal{F}_0 are of finite dimension m, both chains stabilize, that is, there exist non-negative integers \alpha_1 and \alpha_2 such that for any j_1\geq\alpha_1 and j_2\geq\alpha_2 we have \mathcal{R}_{j_1}=\mathcal{R}_{j_1+1} and \mathcal{F}_{j_2}=\mathcal{F}_{j_2+1}. Let \alpha:=\max \{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\}. We then have \mathcal{R}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{R}_{\alpha+1} and \mathcal{F}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{F}_{\alpha+1}. Lemma 6 and the definition of \alpha give \mathcal{R}_{\alpha+1}\subset \mathcal{R}_\alpha\cap\mathcal{F}_\alpha\subset \mathcal{R}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{R}_{\alpha+1}. This implies \mathcal{R}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{R}_\alpha\cap\mathcal{F}_\alpha. Similarly we get \mathcal{F}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{R}_\alpha\cap\mathcal{F}_\alpha. It follows that \mathcal{R}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{F}_{\alpha}. The equality \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha})=\tau_2(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha})= \mathcal{G}_\alpha is immediate from Lemma 6.

Uses Lemma 6

Lemma

Lemma 8 (\cW_\alpha-Initialization)

CESL

In addition to the hypotheses of Proposition 3, suppose \dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)>n-d. Then there is a subspace \mathcal{W}_\alpha of \mathcal{R}_{\alpha} of dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)-(n-d)] such that \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\alpha)+\tau_2(\mathcal{W}_\alpha))=2\dim(\mathcal{W}_\alpha).

Uses Proposition 3

Proof of Lemma 8

By Lemma 7 and the rank-plus-nullity theorem we have

\begin{aligned} \dim(\ker(\tau_1|_{\mathcal{R}_\alpha}))=\dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)-\dim(\mathcal{G}_{\alpha})=\dim(\ker(\tau_2|_{\mathcal{R}_\alpha})) \end{aligned}

Moreover, by hypothesis \operatorname{rank}(\tau_1|_{\mathcal{R}_\alpha}) \ge \dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)-(n-2d)>d. Hence

(n-d)+\dim(\mathcal{G}_{\alpha})-\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha})=\operatorname{rank}(\tau_1|_{\mathcal{R}_\alpha})-d>0

Since \dim (\mathcal{U}_{\tau_1,\tau_2}^{\operatorname{cl}}) = \dim (\mathcal{U}_{\tau_1,\tau_2}) \le n-d and \dim (\mathscr{E}_{(\tau_1,\tau_2),1}) \le n-d as well, Lemma 2 gives a subspace \mathcal{H} of \mathcal{R}_\alpha of dimension \dim(\mathcal{G}_{\alpha}), such that \mathcal{H} \cap \ker(\tau_1|_{\mathcal{R}_\alpha}) = \mathcal{H} \cap \ker(\tau_2|_{\mathcal{R}_\alpha})=0 and

\begin{aligned} \dim(\mathcal{U}^{\operatorname{cl}}_{\tau_1,\tau_2}\cap\mathcal{H})\le (n-d)+\dim(\mathcal{G}_\alpha)-\dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha) \\ \dim(\mathscr{E}_{(\tau_1,\tau_2),1}\cap\mathcal{H})\le (n-d)+\dim(\mathcal{G}_\alpha)-\dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha) \end{aligned}

Since \tau_1(\mathcal{H})=\mathcal{G}_\alpha=\tau_2(\mathcal{H}) we have that \tau_\mathcal{H}:=(\tau_1|_\mathcal{H})^{-1}\tau_2|_\mathcal{H} is an isomorphism of \mathcal{H}. We are going to get our subspace \mathcal{W}_\alpha by applying Lemma 4 with ambient space \mathcal{H}, \mathbb{C}-linear map \tau_\mathcal{H} and subspace dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)-(n-d)], this number being positive by hypothesis. There are two things we need to check, the first being that \dim (\mathcal{H}) \ge 2 [\dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)-(n-d)]. Indeed, this is true because

\begin{aligned} \dim(\mathcal{H})\geq 2[\dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)-(n-d)] &\Leftrightarrow 2n-2d\geq \dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)+\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha})-\dim(\mathcal{G}_\alpha)\\ &\Leftrightarrow 2n-2d\geq \dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)+\dim(\ker(\tau_1|_{\mathcal{R}_\alpha})) \\ &\Leftarrow 2n-2d\geq \dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)+\dim(\ker(\tau_1)) \\ &\Leftrightarrow (\operatorname{rank}(\tau_1)-2d) + (n-\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha}))\geq 0 \end{aligned}

and the last inequality is true by hypothesis. The second thing that we need to check is that for any \lambda\in\mathbb{C}

\begin{aligned} \dim(\mathscr{E}_{\tau_\mathcal{H},\lambda})\leq\dim(\mathcal{H})-[\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha})-(n-d)] \end{aligned}

When \lambda=0, we have \mathscr{E}_{\tau_\mathcal{H},0} = \ker(\tau_\mathcal{H})=0, because \tau_\mathcal{H} is an isomorphism. When \lambda\neq 0, v \in \mathscr{E}_{\tau_\mathcal{H},\lambda} is equivalent to \tau_1|_\mathcal{H}(v)=\lambda\tau_2|_\mathcal{H}(v) or equivalently v\in(\mathcal{U}_{\tau_1,\tau_2}\cap\mathcal{H}) \cup (\mathscr{E}_{(\tau_1,\tau_2),1} \cap \mathcal{H}). This shows that \mathscr{E}_{\tau_\mathcal{H},\lambda} lives in (\mathcal{U}_{\tau_1,\tau_2}^{\operatorname{cl}}\cap\mathcal{H}) \cup (\mathscr{E}_{(\tau_1,\tau_2),1} \cap \mathcal{H}) and as per (Proof) and (Proof) that latter set has dimension at most \dim (\mathcal{H}) -[\dim(\mathcal{R}_\alpha)-(n-d)].

Now Lemma 4 gives a subspace \mathcal{W}_\alpha of \mathcal{H} of dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\alpha})-(n-d)] such that \dim(\mathcal{W}_\alpha+\tau_\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{W}_\alpha))=2\dim(\mathcal{W}_\alpha). Since \tau_1|_\mathcal{H} is an isomorphism from \mathcal{H} to \mathcal{G}_{\alpha} and \mathcal{W}_\alpha+\tau_\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{W}_\alpha) is a subspace of \mathcal{H}, we have that \mathcal{W}_\alpha+\tau_\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{W}_\alpha) \cong \tau_1|_\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{W}_\alpha+\tau_\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{W}_\alpha)) = \tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\alpha) + \tau_2(\mathcal{W}_\alpha). That is, \dim (\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\alpha) + \tau_2(\mathcal{W}_\alpha)) = 2 \dim (\mathcal{W}_\alpha).

Uses Lemma 7, Lemma 2, Lemma 4

Lemma

Lemma 9 (\cW_\beta-Initialization)

94P6

In addition to the hypotheses of Proposition 3, suppose \dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\beta})\leq n-d<\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta}) for some non-negative integer \beta. Then there exists a subspace \mathcal{W}_\beta of \mathcal{R}_{\beta} of dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta})-(n-d)] such that \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\beta)+\tau_2(\mathcal{W}_\beta))=2\dim(\mathcal{W}_\beta).

Uses Proposition 3

Proof of Lemma 9

We have

\begin{aligned} [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta})-(n-d)]+\dim(\ker(\tau_1))=\dim(\mathcal{R}_\beta)+(d-\operatorname{rank}(\tau_1))\le \dim(\mathcal{R}_\beta) \end{aligned}

and a similar inequality for \tau_2. Moreover,

\begin{aligned} [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta})-(n-d)]+ \dim(\mathcal{R}_\beta\cap\mathcal{F}_\beta)\leq \dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta})+ [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\beta})-(n-d)]\leq \dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta}). \end{aligned}

Consequently, by Lemma 2 there exists a subspace \mathcal{W}_\beta of \mathcal{R}_\beta of dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\beta})-(n-d)] which does not intersect \ker(\tau_1), \ker(\tau_2) and \mathcal{R}_\beta\cap\mathcal{F}_\beta. Clearly \beta >0 and Lemma 6 gives \tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\beta)\subset\tau_1(\mathcal{R}_\beta)=\mathcal{G}_\beta. Recalling definition (?), we have

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{W}_\beta\cap \tau_2^{-1}(\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\beta))&\subset \mathcal{W}_\beta\cap \tau_2^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_\beta)\\ &=\mathcal{W}_\beta\cap \tau_2^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_\beta)\cap\mathcal{R}_\beta\\ &=\mathcal{W}_\beta\cap \tau_2^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_\beta)\cap\tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_\beta)\cap\mathcal{R}_{\beta-1}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\beta-1}\\ &=\mathcal{W}_\beta\cap \tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_\beta)\cap\mathcal{F}_\beta\\ &\subset\mathcal{W}_\beta\cap\mathcal{F}_\beta=\mathcal{W}_\beta\cap\mathcal{R}_\beta\cap\mathcal{F}_\beta=0. \end{aligned}

In short \mathcal{W}_\beta\cap \tau_2^{-1}(\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\beta))=0, and it follows that \tau_2(\mathcal{W}_\beta)\cap\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\beta)=0. Recalling that \mathcal{W}_\beta\cap\ker(\tau_1)=0 and \mathcal{W}_\beta\cap\ker(\tau_2)=0, we conclude that \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_\beta)+\tau_2(\mathcal{W}_\beta))=2\dim(\mathcal{W}_\beta).

Uses Lemma 2, Lemma 6

Lemma

Lemma 10 (\cZ_\gamma-Initialization)

C0ZH

In addition to the hypotheses of Proposition 3, suppose that \dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma+1})\leq n-d<\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_\gamma) for some non-negative integer \gamma. Then there exists a subspace \mathcal{Z}_\gamma of \mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma} of dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma})-(n-d)], such that \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma)+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma))=2\dim(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma).

Uses Proposition 3

Proof of Lemma 10

We have

\begin{aligned} [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma})-(n-d)]+\dim(\ker(\tau_1))=\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma})+(d-\operatorname{rank}(\tau_1))\le\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}) \end{aligned}

and a similar inequality for \tau_2. Moreover,

\begin{aligned} [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma})-(n-d)]+\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma+1})=\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma})+[\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma+1})- (n-d)]\leq \dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}). \end{aligned}

Thus Lemma 2 implies the existence of a subspace \mathcal{Z}_\gamma of \mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma} of dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{\gamma}\cap\mathcal{F}_{\gamma})-(n-d)] which does not intersect \ker(\tau_1), \ker(\tau_2) and \mathcal{R}_{\gamma+1}. This gives \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma))=\dim(\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma))=\dim(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma). It now suffices to prove \tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma)\cap\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma)=0. Let \tau_1(v_1)=\tau_2(v_2) for some v_1,v_2\in \mathcal{Z}_\gamma. Then

\begin{aligned} \tau_1(v_1)\in \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_\gamma\cap\mathcal{F}_\gamma)\cap\tau_2(\mathcal{R}_\gamma\cap\mathcal{F}_\gamma)=:\mathcal{G}_{\gamma+1}. \end{aligned}

This implies v_1\in\tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_{\gamma+1}) and so

\begin{aligned} v_1\in \mathcal{Z}_\gamma\cap\tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_{\gamma+1})=\mathcal{Z}_\gamma\cap\tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_{\gamma+1})\cap \mathcal{R}_\gamma\cap\mathcal{F}_\gamma=\mathcal{Z}_\gamma \cap \mathcal{R}_{\gamma+1}=0. \end{aligned}

Thus v_1=0 and we have proved \tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma)\cap\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_\gamma)=0.

Uses Lemma 2

Lemma

Lemma 11 (\cW_j-Extension)

2L7S

In addition to the hypotheses of Proposition 3, suppose for some j that \dim(\mathcal{R}_{j}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j})> n-d and that there exists a subspace \mathcal{Z}_j of \mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j satisfying

\begin{aligned} \mathscr{P}(\mathcal{Z}_j):\ \dim(\mathcal{Z}_j)=[\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j})-(n-d)] \text{\ \ and \ } \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j)+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j))=2\dim(\mathcal{Z}_j). \end{aligned}

Then there exists a subspace \mathcal{W}_j of \mathcal{R}_{j} satisfying \mathcal{Z}_j\subset \mathcal{W}_j and

\begin{aligned} \mathscr{P}(\mathcal{W}_j):\ \dim(\mathcal{W}_j)=[\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j})-(n-d)] \text{\ \ and \ } \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_j)+\tau_2(\mathcal{W}_j))=2\dim(\mathcal{W}_j). \end{aligned}

Uses Proposition 3

Proof of Lemma 11

If \mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j=\mathcal{R}_j, then we are done by letting \mathcal{W}_j=\mathcal{Z}_j. In what follows we assume \dim(\mathcal{R}_j)>\dim(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j), in particular j > 0. The subspace \tau_1^{-1}(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j)+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j)) has dimension at most (n-\operatorname{rank}(\tau_1))+2[\dim(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)-(n-d)]. Hence

\begin{aligned} [\dim(\mathcal{R}_j)-\dim(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)]+\dim(\tau_1^{-1}(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j)+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j)))&\le \dim(\mathcal{R}_j)+[2d-\operatorname{rank}(\tau_1)]+[\dim(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)-n] \\ &\leq \dim(\mathcal{R}_j). \end{aligned}

By hypothesis it is also true that [\dim(\mathcal{R}_j)-\dim(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)]+\dim(\ker(\tau_1)) \le \dim(\mathcal{R}_j) and similarly for \tau_2. Hence, by Lemma 2 there is a subspace \mathcal{W}_j' of \mathcal{R}_j of dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_j)-\dim(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)], which does not intersect the subspaces \mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j, \, \tau_1^{-1}(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j)+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j)), \, \ker(\tau_1), \, \ker(\tau_2). In particular \tau_1(\mathcal{W}_j')\cap[\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j)+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j)]=0. This together with the hypothesis gives \dim (\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j)+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j)+\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_j')) = 2[\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j})-(n-d)]+[\dim(\mathcal{R}_j)-\dim(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)]. Equivalently,

\begin{aligned} \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j')+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j))=\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j})+\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j})-2(n-d). \end{aligned}

Since \mathcal{Z}_j\subset \mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j we see that \tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j)\subset \tau_2(\mathcal{F}_j)=\mathcal{G}_j. With \tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j')\subset \tau_1(\mathcal{R}_j)=\mathcal{G}_j (Lemma 6), we obtain that \tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j')+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j) is a subspace of \mathcal{G}_j, and consequently

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{W}_j'\cap\tau_2^{-1}(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j')+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j))&\subset \mathcal{W}_j'\cap\tau_2^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_j)\\ &=\mathcal{W}_j'\cap\tau_2^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_j) \cap\mathcal{R}_j\\ &=\mathcal{W}_j'\cap\tau_2^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_j) \cap\tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_j) \cap\mathcal{R}_{j-1}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j-1}\\ &=\mathcal{W}_j'\cap \tau_1^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_j)\cap\mathcal{F}_j\\ &\subset \mathcal{W}_j'\cap\mathcal{F}_j\\ &=\mathcal{W}_j'\cap\mathcal{F}_j\cap\mathcal{R}_j=0. \end{aligned}

In short, we have \mathcal{W}_j'\cap\tau_2^{-1}(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j')+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j))=0 and so \tau_2(\mathcal{W}_j')\cap[\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j')+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j)]=0. Recalling (Proof), it follows that [\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j')+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j)]+\tau_2(\mathcal{W}_j') is of dimension [\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j})+\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j})-2(n-d)]+ [\dim(\mathcal{R}_j)-\dim(\mathcal{R}_j\cap\mathcal{F}_j)], that is,

\begin{aligned} \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j')+\tau_2(\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j'))=2\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j})-2(n-d). \end{aligned}

By letting \mathcal{W}_j=\mathcal{Z}_j+\mathcal{W}_j' we finished the proof.

Uses Lemma 2, Lemma 6

Lemma

Lemma 12 (\cZ_j-Extension)

7TIA

In addition to the hypotheses of Proposition 3, suppose for some j that \dim(\mathcal{R}_{j+1})> n-d and that there exists a subspace \mathcal{W}_{j+1} of \mathcal{R}_{j+1} satisfying

\begin{aligned} \mathscr{P}(\mathcal{W}_{j+1}):\ \dim(\mathcal{W}_{j+1})=[\dim(\mathcal{R}_{j+1})-(n-d)] \text{\ \ and \ } \dim(\tau_1(\mathcal{W}_{j+1})+\tau_2(\mathcal{W}_{j+1}))=2\dim(\mathcal{W}_{j+1}). \end{aligned}

Then there exists a subspace \mathcal{Z}_j of \mathcal{R}_{j}\cap\mathcal{F}_{j} satisfying \mathcal{W}_{j+1}\subset \mathcal{Z}_j and

Uses Proposition 3

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2006.05158v4 by Liangzu Peng and Manolis C. Tsakiris, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2006/2006.05158.jsonl.