Therefore, for x∗ to be orthogonal to N, it is necessary and sufficient that x∗⊥z be orthogonal to θΛ(Λ(E∗)). Now, the latter condition is equivalent to saying that x∗⊥z=0; for let (eλ)λ∈L be a basis of E; giving L a total ordering, it has been seen (§ 7, no. 8, Theorem 1) that the eJ, for J running through the set F(L) of finite subsets of L, form a basis of Λ(E); it then follows from formula (30) of no. 5 that the elements θ∧(eJ∗) are, to within a sign, the coordinate forms on ∧(E) relative to the basis (eJ); whence our assertion.
The orthogonal of N therefore consists of the x∗∈E∗ such that x∗⊥z=0 and the conclusion of (i) will therefore follow from (ii).
We show first that N⊂Mz. Let M be a vector subspace of E such that z∈∧(M) and let j:M→E be the canonical injection; let μz denote the mapping v∗↦v∗⊥z of ∧p−1(M∗) into M; it follows from formula (60) of no. 7 that there is a canonical factorization
λz:∧p−1(E∗)∧p−1(tj)∧p−1(M∗)μzMjE
which proves that N⊂M and hence N⊂Mz by definition of Mz. It remains to verify that N=Mz. Suppose the converse: there would then exist a basis (ei)1≤i≤n of Mz and an element x∗∈E∗ such that ⟨x∗,e1⟩=1,⟨x∗,ej⟩=0 for 2≤j≤n and such that x∗ is orthogonal to N and hence x∗⊥z=0. We write z=∑HaHeH, where the sum is taken over the subsets of {1,n} with p elements. By (68) (no. 9),
x∗⊥eH=0if 1∈/Hx∗⊥e{1}∪H=eHif H⊂{2,n}
which shows that the relation x∗⊥z=0 implies aH=0 for 1∈H. But this is impossible, for z would then belong to ∧p(M′), where M′ is the subspace of M generated by e2,…,en.
Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.