Task:
Assume $K$ is a field, $V$ is a vetor space over $K$ and $\langle -, - \rangle$ a symmetric bilinear form on $V$. Show that $V$ has a orthogonal basis.
Solution:
Define
$A := \{v \in V | \langle v, u \rangle = 0 \forall u \in V\}$,
and let $U$ be a direct complement such that
$V = A \oplus U.$
The restriction of the bilinear form on $U$ is not degenerated. Let $w_1, ..., w_n$ be a basis of $A$ and $v_1, ..., v_n$ be a basis of $U$. The vectors $w_i$ can be taken as a part of the orthogonal basis since they are orthogonal to every other vector. So we just have to take care of $U$. This means that we can assume from the very beginning that we have a not-degenerated, symmetric bilinear form. Because of the Polarization identity there are also $v \in V$ with $\langle v, v \rangle \neq 0$.
Because of this and since the bilinear form is not-degenerated, we can conclude that the orthogonal complement of $v$ has the dimension $\dim(V) - 1$. This orthogonal complement is not-degenerated too. That is why we can conclude by induction over the dimension that there is a basis $v_1, ..., v_n$ with $\langle v_i, v_i \rangle \neq 0$.
We can orthogonalize a basis like this the following way:
We can find a orthogonal basis $v_1', ..., v_n'$ such that
$\langle v_1, ..., v_i \rangle = \langle v_1', ..., v_n' \rangle$ for every $i$.
We show this by induction. Let $v_1', ..., v_n'$ already be constructed. We define
$c_j := \langle v_j, v_{i+1} \rangle$
and
$v_{i+1}' = v_{i+1} - \sum_{j=1}^i \frac{c_j}{\langle v_j, v_j \rangle} v_j.$
Then we receive for $k \le i$:
$\langle v_{i+1}', v_k \rangle = \langle v_{i+1} - \sum_{j=1}^i \frac{c_j}{\langle v_j, v_j \rangle} v_j, v_k \rangle = \langle v_{i+1}, v_k \rangle - \frac{c_k}{\langle v_k, v_k \rangle} \langle v_k, v_k \rangle = 0$
Questions:
I have tons of questions about this proof.
Why is he arguing with the Polarization identity? How this it give him the result above?
What is this orthogonal complement he is talking about all of the sudden? And why is it relevant in this case?
How did he come to the idea to define $c_j$ and $v_{i+1}'$ the way he did? It looks like it simply came out of nowhere.
How did he conclude the last two steps? Why does the sum disappear nearly completely? I guess it has something to do with the orthogonality. And why does this whole thing equal $0$?