« first day (1059 days earlier)      last day (2369 days later) » 

4:39 AM
@MartinSleziak you may see this when you are around! - I am a bit understanding the proofs of the theorems in Functional analysis but when asked the proof after some days or recalling,i dont remember how they approached the steps ,like how they constructed sucha function for giving counterexample? any advice you want to give,for which i shall be grateful!
 
 
2 hours later…
7:01 AM
This is definitely not something specific to functional analysis, and others can you probably give a better answer than I can. Have you tried searching for posts about this on the main site.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:26 AM
Thank you Martian Sleziak!
 
Lol! I am from Earth. :-)
 
meaning
is that a song
 
@BAYMAX That was just my reaction to you calling me Martian.
 
Ohhh..really sorry...It was not intentional,..just typing error... wow that's a comedy too!!
 
 
4 hours later…
1:45 PM
.
For $y \in H$ define $j_{y}:H' \rightarrow K$ by $j_{y}(f) = f(y),f \in H'$ ,then $j_{y}$ is acontinuous linear functional on $H'$ and the map $J$ from $H $ to $H'$ defined by $J(y) = j_{y},y \in H$ is a surjective linear isometry that is $H$ is reflexive!
its theorem 24.5 by BV Limaye
This appears a bit abstract
what is it trying to say?
Lets see why $j_{y}$ is linear?
$j_{y} : H' \rightarrow \Bbb{K}$ is linear as say $j_{y}(f+g) = (f+g)(y) = f(y)+g(y)=j_{y}(f) + j_{y}(g)$ and also $j_{y}(\alpha f) = (\alpha f)(y) = \alpha f(y) = \alpha j_{y}$ so $j_{y}$ is alinear functional! i think this proof is correct?
Now lets prove $j_{y}$ is continuous!
so $||j_{y}|| = ||f(y)|| \leq ||f|| ||y||$
 
Re: What is it trying to say? Exactly what is says on the tin: Every Hilbert space is a reflexive space.
 
tin?
 
The theorem says that $H$ is reflexive. So that's exactly what the theorem is trying to say.
It probably helps if you have some experience with reflexive space and duals. But if not and if this is your first encounter with reflexive space, it's perfectly ok. You learn some stuff about Hilbert spaces, duals (and double duals) and maybe later you'll appreciate that some Banach spaces have similar properties.
 
does it has to satisfy all the three conditions?
of the reflexive space in WikiP
 
WP says:
> A normed space X is called reflexive if it satisfies the following equivalent conditions: ...
So those conditions are equivalent. (At least if you believe Wikipedia.)
 
1:59 PM
so we have to prove that the map $J$ is surjective,linear isometry
why we have $||j_{y}|| \leq ||y||$
there the $f$ is varying?
 
You have $\|j_y(f)\|=\|f(y)\| \le \|f\|\cdot\|y\|$ for each $f$.
So $\frac{\|j_y(f)\|}{\|f\|} \le \|y\|$ for each $f$.
Just recall that $$\|j_y\| = \sup \frac{\|j_y(f)\|}{\|f\|}.$$
 
OMG
 
I believe this is almost exactly what you have in the proof in Limaye's book.
 
yes
 
3:03 PM
sorry, my system got hanged and is working now!! I apologize.
So $H''$ is the double dual?
Let us check that $J:H \rightarrow H''$
is linear?
say $J(x+y) = j_{x+y} = ?$
say $j_{x+y}(f) = ?$ so it is $j_{x+y} (f) = f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) = j_{x}(f) + j_{y}(f) \forall f $ so $j_{x+y} = j_{x} + j_{y}$ so it is linear
is this correct
so $J(x+y) = J(x) + J(y)$
Now coming to Surjective part!
So we have to prove that,$J : H \rightarrow H''$ is Surjective
consider $\phi \in H''$
Applying Reisz Representation theorem to $\phi$ on $H'$ we obtain a representer $g \in H'$ of $\phi$
so we write $\phi(f) = <f,g>' = <y_{g},y_{f}> $
now $<y_{g},y_{f} > = f(y_{g})$
and we know $f(y_{g} ) = J(y_{g})(f)$
and since $f \in H'$ was arbitrary
so $\phi = J(y_{g})$!
So $\phi$ is surjective
also $J(y)$ is an isometry
since $||J(y)|| = ||j_{y}|| = ||y||$
thus $J$ is surjective linear isometry
as $J :H \rightarrow H''$ is surjective thus $H$ is Reflexive
Thus Hilbert space is reflexive
 
4:28 PM
I am not sure whether this way of looking at reflexive spaces is useful or not, but maybe is worth mentioning.
If you learned about dual spaces in linear algebra, then you have certainly learned about canonical embedding of a space into the double dual.
This is in fact isomorphism for finite dimensional spaces, but not for infinite dimensional vector spaces.
This canonical embedding is the same map as in your theorem, but now you are looking at different type of dual. (You require also continuity.)
And reflexive spaces are the ones where this is isomorphism - so in this way they behave similarly to finitely dimensional vector spaces.
But I am not really sure to which extent this analogy is good/useful. (But it's certainly useful to recognize that this is exactly the same map.)
 
@MartinSleziak where we used finite dimension here?
ok
the above is the same as in Limaye!
 
 
2 hours later…
6:08 PM
@BAYMAX Yes, it's a different result, but somewhat similar.
I mentioned it because I thought that if you learned about duals of vector spaces before, you could see how this result for duals of normed spaces is analogous.
If you look at WP article Dual space, they call it algebraic dual and continuous dual.
Briefly:
If I have a vector space $V$, I can define (algebraic) dual $V^*$ as the vector space of all linear maps $V\to\mathbb K$.
If I have a normed space $X$, I can define (continuous) dual $X'$ as the normed space consisting of all linear continuous maps $X\to\mathbb K$.
So they are different things, but as you can see, they are somewhat analogous constructions.
And if you have been taught dual spaces in linear algebra, you have certainly seen also the canonical map $V\to V^{**}$. This is an isomorphism for finite dimensional spaces.
So the situation here is somewhat similar: We have a similar construction (also called dual) for normed spaces. And for a large class of well-behaved spaces you have that there is a canonical isomorphism between $X$ and $X''$.
 
Thnx for intrptng..will read thm..wll get sm sleep..
 
But I'll repeat again, that I mentioned this mainly because if you have been taught dual vector spaces in linear algebra, then it's worth looking at them and comparing with this notion - to see that there is some kind of analogy.
If you never heard of duals of vector spaces you can simply ignore the above remarks.
 
ok
see you later!
 

« first day (1059 days earlier)      last day (2369 days later) »