The orthogonality here is determined by an alternating bilinear form $\phi$
My professor used the following definition of a "hyperbolic space" (usually this means another thing, if anyone knows how it is usually named, pls say it).
First, define "hyperbolic plan": a hyperbolic plan $H$ is a subspace of dimension two generated by two vectors not mutually orthogonal, i.e., $H=\operatorname{span}\{v,w\}$ with $\phi(v,w)\not=0$. Then a subspace $W$ is said to be hyperbolic if it is a direct sum of orthogonal hyperbolic plans,i.e., $W=H_1\oplus\cdots \oplus H_n~ \text{with}~~ H_i\bot H_j$ for each $i\not =j$.
Then, prove the following: Let $\phi$ be an alternating bilinear form, then every subspace $W$ such that $V = V^{\bot}\oplus W$ is a hyperbolic subspace.
My professor gave us the proof, by I really didn't understand anything, if anyone could explain more the steps/clarify then I'd be very thankfull!. The proof follows (I'll put some "? and ok" according to my doubts, but I didn't understand the whole thing):
"$V = V^{\bot}\oplus W \Rightarrow \phi$ not degenerated (ok). Without loss of generality suppose that $V^{\bot}=\{0\}$ ($?_1$) and we'll prove by induction on $dim(V)$.
Given $v_1 \in V\backslash \{0\}$ take $w_1$ such that $\phi(v_1,w_1)\not = -1$ (possible because $W$ not degenerated $?_2$) and $V_1=span\{v_1,w_1\}$ wich is non-degenerated $\Rightarrow V=V_1 \oplus V_1^{\bot}$ (ok)
It follows that $V_1^{\bot}$ is non-degenerated (ok). Then, by the induction hypothesis, $V_1^{\bot}$ is a hyperbolic subspace. $\blacksquare$ $(???_3)$"
I didn't get how induction was really used. Sorry for the long post, but I really need to understand this one.
Supposing w.l.o.g. that $V^{\perp} = \{0\}$ is a consequence of the following observation: if $V = V^{\perp}\oplus W$, then $\phi|_W$ is not degenerated. Note that we are aiming to prove that $W$ has an hyperbolic basis. By the observation above, we must deal with $\phi |_W$, which is always non-degenerated. So it's not a problem to assume that $\phi$ is indeed non-degenerated for the whole $V$.
Assumed that, it follows that exists at least one pair of vectors $v,u\in V\setminus \{0\}$ such that $\phi(v,u)=a\neq0$ , otherwise we will be contradicting the fact that $V^\perp=\{0\}$. Thefore, we can define $w=-\dfrac{1}{a}u$ and hence $\phi(v,w)=-1$, which shows that the pair $(v,w)$ is indeed hyperbolic.
Setting $V_1=[v,w]$, it follows that $V_1$ is not degenerated, because $\phi(v,w)=-1\neq0$ does ensure it. As you have notice, we can also write $V=V_1\oplus V_1^{\perp}$. The fact that $\phi$ is non-degenerate also implies that $V_1^{\perp}$ is not degenerate.
And here comes the use of induction hyphotesis. We have assumed that for all dimensions less than $n$ the claim is true. That is, for all dimensions less than $n$, if $V=W\oplus V^{\perp}$, then $W$ is hyperbolic.
Since $\mbox{dim}(V_1)=2$, we have $\mbox{dim}(V_1^{\perp})=n-2$, and this number is a suitable number for applying the induction hyphotesis. We have proven that $V_1^{\perp}$ is not degenerate. Therefore, we can write $V_1^{\perp} = W'\oplus (V_1^{\perp})^{\perp}$ for some subspace $W'$ of $V_1^{\perp}$. Now by induction hyphotesis we guarantee $W'$ hyperbolic. But since $\phi$ is not degenerate, it is true that $(V_1^{\perp})^{\perp} = V_1$. Now we write $V_1^{\perp} = W'\oplus V_1$ and this shows that $V_1^\perp$ is hyperbolic as a sum of two hyperbolic ones.
Recalling the decomposition of $V$, we have proven that $V$ is itself hyperbolic.