Date | Topics discussed |
---|---|
Thursday, April 29 | |
Thursday, April 27 | I discussed the maximal ideal space of a commutative Banach algebra. I applied this to the solution of a problem in complex analysis (a good Math 503 homework problem) and to the proof of Weiner's Theorem. Next time: the Borel functional calculus, yet another version of the spectral theorem. |
Thursday, April 22 | I finished the continuous functional calculus, and discussed the holomorphic functional calculus. I stated Norbert Weiner's Theorem on absolutely convergent Fourier series and said I would prove it next time, as an application of these methods. |
Tuesday, April 20 |
Mr. Stucchio finished his discussion. I remarked that one could also
proved a more precise version of the Schauder theorem, using a notion
of degree, and that Professor Li would discuss this in the fall
semester. But I told Professor Vogelius (scheduled to teach a successor course in the fall) that I would do some version of the Spectral Theorem for bounded operators. So I discussed what a "spectral theorem" was. In finite dimensions, this seemed easy. If dimension is no longer finite, then ... there are many versions. I recommended Riesz-Nagy's book (now available in a very reasonably priced paperback edition) as an original source. I would do a version of the continuous functional calculus as in Reed & Simon, and then a version of the holomorphic functional calculus as in Conway's book. And, finally (after some applications), I would do a measurable functional calculus verson. |
Tsday, | I discussed the equicontinuous version, called the Kakutani fixed point theorem, for the case of a Banach space. Then Mr. Lins very capably proved the Schauder fixed point theorem. Mr. Stucchio began to discuss an application the the Schrödinger equation. |
Tuesday, April 13 | I proved that a compact group has a unique biinvariant Haar measure. Of course I had a little bit of difficulty with a simple part of the proof. Oh well, but I also pulled a fast one: I stated the Markov-Kakutani Theorem, but actually I needed a version which substituted "equicontinuous family of continuous linear maps" for "commuting family of linear maps". And NONE of the students knew this! NONE, NONE, NONE .... hahhhahhahahhahahhahaa. |
Thursday, April 8 | Krein-Milman and simple consequences. Then the Markov-Kakutani Theorem and very simple examples. |
Tuesday, April 6 | I stated and proved Alaoglu's Theorem. I proved some applications. I started the Krein-Milman Theorem, but looked at interesting examples. |
Tuesday, March 30 |
I admitted that I forgot how to prove Borel's Theorem as a
simple consequence of the Open Mapping Theorem. There is a
proof in Treves's book on topological vector spaces, but the proof
needs facts about weak topologies.
I started going through the chapter on convexity in Rudin's Functional Analysis book. |
Thursday, March 25 | Mr. Speck showed that the OMT implied the CGT. I showed that the CGT, on the other hand, implied the OMT. SO they are equivalent. I discussed Borel's Theorem and the plethora of C^{infty} functions. I discussed Frechet spaces. I tried to set up a framework for Borel's Theorem. |
Tuesday, March 23 | Proved the Open Mapping Theorem. Commented that the proof
essentially "axiomatizes" a proof scheme which occurs many times in
elementary real and complex analysis.
A continuous linear bijection between Banach spaces must be a homeomorphism. Or: if two Banach space norms on a vector space are comparable, then they are equivalent.
Digression
Stated the Closed Graph Theorem. The Reed-Simon ansatz: I applied this result to prove the Hellinger-Toeplitz Theorem. |
Thursday, March 11 |
There was a handout, giving some
useful pictures of curves and people.
I went over the theory of Fourier series on the circle, or the interval [0,2Pi] where the ends were identified. My references were Introduction to Abstract Harmonic Analysis by Katznelson and some material by Varadhan. I did not refer to Zygmund's "bible" on Fourier series. When reading various references, some attention should be paid to whether the integral has a 1/2Pi or not, etc. I outlined the background for the Fejér and Dirichlet kernelts (summation methods), and used Uniform Boundedness to "produce" (?) an example of a continous function whose Dirichlet-summed Fourier series did not converge at 0. The Fejér sums, of course, behaved very well. We (Mr. Speck and I) stated the Open Mapping and Closed Graph Theorems. I'll prove the Open Mapping Theorem, and Mr. Speck will deduce the Closed Graph Theorem from it. (I claimed that the two results were in duality much as the Inverse/Implicit Function Theorems were. Sigh. I also attempted to prove a false result. Oh well.) |
Tuesday, March 9 | We restated the Baire Category Theorem. We showed (see Boas,
A Primer of Real Functions for this result and others like it)
that an entire function with the property that for all z, there is n
so that f^{(n)}(z)=0 must be a polynomial.
We stated Montel's Theorem, proved Vitali's Theorem (which spreads convergence) and proved Osgood's Theorem (if a sequence of holomorphic functions converges pointwise in an open set, then in a dense open set the sequence converges u.c.c. to its limit, a holomorphic function). (Proof from Ash, Complex Analysis). We proved the uniform boundedness/Banach-Steinhaus Theorem. The proof was very analogous to Osgood's Theorem. The instructor unfortunately stated a false lemma, but was saved from disaster by alert listeners. The proof sort of followed Reed & Simon's Functional Analysis. Completeness is needed (R^{infty}, T_{j}(v)=<v,je_{j}>.). We verified that separate continuity implies joint continuity for bilinear maps (where one factor is complete). This was contrasted with the non-linear case. |
Thursday, March 4 | I discussed Banach limits, mostly following Conway's
treatment. I mentioned that I didn't believe in them (much the same as
[non-principal] ultrafilters, Stone-Cech compactification, etc.).
Briefly defined the density character of a topological space (the "smallest" cardinality of a dense subset) and showed that the density character of X was always less than or equal to that of X^{*}. I discussed the canonical (isometric) embedding of X into X^{**} and mentioned James's example of a Banach space X isomorphic to its double dual but not reflexive (reflexive means that the X-->X^{**} is a bijection). Here (at least from Rutgers browsers) is a link to James' original paper. This paper is not easy reading for me -- it is rather brief. More information can be found in Lindenstraus & Tzafriri, "Classical Banach Spaces", and in Megginson's recent functional analysis book. It is time to leave H-B and begin to struggle with the phenomenal consequences of completeness. So I stated a version of the Baire Category Theorem. And another version of the Baire Category Theorem. We attempted (and I think succeeded!) in showing that these results were identical. So I wanted to discuss a consequence of the theorem in a familiar area, and therefore stated a result called the Vitali-Saks-Osgood Theorem which I will attempt to prove next time. |
Tuesday, March 2 | I proved much of Runge's Theorem. trying to give insight. We prepared for Runge's Theorem by deriving some simple consequences of H-B, such as existence of enough continuous linear functionals to separate points in a normed vector space. Also, If M is a subspace of V, and v is in V, then there is a continuous linear functional which is 0 on M and is d on v, where d is inf||v+m|| for m in M. This enabled us to prove that the closure of M is all points on which all continuous linear functionals which vanish on M must vanish at these points. |
Thursday, February 26 |
I tried to review some of the history of the Hahn-Banach Theorem. One
nice reference is Narici
and Beckenstein.. Constructive mathematics spurns H-B, since you
can't get a hand on the answer. For this approach, see the text
Constructive Analysis by Bishop and Bridges. Formalist
mathematics has evolved so that there are currently projects whose
results can be seen through the web to check proofs. The Mizar proof
of H-b is available.
I will take the traditional view, a middle path, with these other
approaches in mind, and try to prove I discussed the geometric and analytic forms of H-B (following Treves, Topological Vector Spaces) and thus tried to answer why "locally convex" was a useful concept. I needed to define the Minkowski functional of a convex balanced (circled!) neighborhood of 0. We worked on the H-B theorem with an upper bound that is sublinear, a bit weaker than a seminorm. I did the baby step (up 1 dimension), but not without errors. I used Zorn's Lemma. I got the theorem. I stated and sort of proved the theorem with a seminorm. My first applications will be not directly to functional analysis: Runge's Theorem (I can "see" it and I "believe" it), and the existence of Banach limits (I "believe" it but I can't "see" it and probably no one else can either). I began by discussing the statement of Runge's Theorem, and got the existence of an almost paradoxical sequence of pointwise convergent polynomials. |
Tuesday, February 24 | We
had fun. First I alluded to Fredholm's
original paper, written in French and appearing in Acta Mathematica in
1903. We looked at the Fredholm alternative, as stated for integral
equations and I commented briefly on Fredholm's method of proof.
Then I went back to look at Sturm-Liouville problems one more time. I remarked that the dimension of each eigenspace was 1. I further said that the kernel had a nice eigenspace expansion. We looked at a kernel to solve the initial value problem, and I compared a graph of a it with the kernel graph below. "Clearly" one is self-adjoint and the other is not. The algebra resulting from the fact that this kernel is not self-adjoint is irritating. I should ask people to compute the commutator as a homework assignment. I looked briefly at the functional calculus for these operators. We could take the square root of a compact self-adjoint operator by just taking the square root of the eigenvalues on each eigenspace. We could define cosine of a compact self-adjoint operator -- we will do more of this when we do spectral theory of general self-adjoint operators, where the point spectrum (eigenvalues) is much smaller than the whole spectrum. The spectral theory of normal compact operators is a small amount of additional work, which I will not do. The idea is: start with a compact operator, T, on H, which is normal: [T,T^{*}]=0. Here {A,B]=AB-BA. The analogy to keep in mind is that self-adjoint operators are like real numbers, and normal ones are like complex numbers. So T=A+iB where A and B are self-adjoint. A is (T+T^{*})/2 and B is (T-T^{*})(2i). A and B commute, and on, say, A's eigenspaces, B is compact, so B has invariant eigenspaces. Therefore T "diagonalizes". Etc. In fact, there is a mapping from functions holomorphic on T's spectrum to operators. This mapping is an algebra homomorphism with kernel 0, and maps z to T. The resulting functional calculus has many uses. We waved goodbye to the beautiful S-L theory. Now to the core of basic functional analysis:
Examples
Intuition from algebra Do the duals of Banach spaces keep getting bigger? How should we measure "bigger"? It will turn out that the Hamel basis are uncountable always. What about separable? Equivalent to the whole space being the closure of the rational linear span of a countable number of linear independent vectors. We saw that the complex Borel measures and L^{infty} were not separable, but the other examples were. I remarked that the sequence of duals of Banach spaces had 3 types of behavior: either they were all the "same" (Hilbert space), or they alternated (L^{p} for 1<p<infty), or they were all different. Examples for the last behvior turn out to be L^{1} or C([0,1]) but this is not clear nor is the general description just given!
More generally The first example has dual space {0}. The second has a Frechet space structure, and it has neighborhoods of 0 which are convex. Its dual space is big. The dual space in the third case is the distributions (Schwartz) is very big. The test functions are also locally convex. So that is why there is a sublinear functional in the proof of the H-B theorem. That's next time! |
Tuesday, February 19 | We stated the Sturm-Liouville problem (21,000 Google
references), and "solved" it: that
is, we found an integral operator which "inverts" this second order
ODE with boundary conditions. I analyzed only the most classical
version, with separated boundary conditions and finite interval. In my
defense, I tried to verify (almost) every detail. Still left is some
feeling for why the Green function for S-L should look the way
it looks: a good engineer (Oliver Heaviside?) would probably tell us
things about delta functions, etc. The presentation, like most in
various functional analysis courses, was modeled after a section of
text Foundations of Modern Analysis (1960) by
J. Dieudonné. Many results in ODE's and PDE's follow this
outline.
The most routine example is L(y)=y'' on [0,Pi] with y(0)=0 and y(Pi)=0. Then the Green function can be explicitly computed. Here is part of a Maple session to see what the Green function looks like: f:=(x,t)->piecewise(t>x,x*(t-Pi),t*(x-Pi)); B:=plot3d(f(x,t),x=0..Pi,t=0..Pi,color=red,grid=[100,100]): A:=spacecurve([t,1.5-t,f(t,1.5-t)],t=0..1.5,thickness=4,color=black,numpoints=200): display3d({A,B});Here is a view of the result plotted in (x,t,k(x,t)) space. The black line represents a slice of the surface by a plane perpendicular to the (x,t) plane. What's going on? |
Tuesday, February 17 |
I first defined invariant subspace for a linear
self-mapping. Then I showed that the closure of an invariant subspace
for a continuous linear mapping was continuous. I tried to show that
the orthogonal complement of an invariant subspace was invariant,
but1 0 1 1was prevented by an example. If the operator were self-adjoint, then the result is true.
I remarked that the bulk of the story would be in step 1, as follows:
Now we iterated step 1, and got a sequence of finite dimensional, mutually orthogonal eigenspaces. The eigenvalues decreased. We showed that they must decrease to 0 with a similar compactness argument. A compact self-adjoint operator on an infinite dimensional H must have 0 in its spectrum, or else Id (which is T composed with T^{-1}) will be compact. And we further know: 0 can be the only accumulation point of the spectrum, which is real. Every non-zero number is an eigenvalue corresponding to mutually perpendicular collection of finite dimensional eigenspaces. And if P_{n} is the orthogonal projection corresponding to the eigenspace L_{n}, then T=SUM_{n=1}^{infty} L_{n}P_{n}. On a non-separable Hilbert space, the kernel of a compact self-adjoint T is not 0. In each eigenspace we could use Gram-Schmidt, so if T is 1-1, then the associated collection of o.n. eigenvectors is complete. This is a nice way to prove completeness of an o.n. set. I tried to analyze, almost word-by-word, a paragraph from Reed & Simon's Functional Analysis book on the Fredholm alternative. So this is from p.201 of that text: "The basic principle which makes compact operators important is the Fredholm alternative: If A is compact, then either Af=f has a solution of (I-A)^{-1} exists. This is not a property shared by all bounded linear operators. For example, if A is the operator (Af)(x)=xf(x) on L^{2}[0,1], then Af=f has no solutions by (I-A)^{-1} does not exist (as a bounded linear operator). In terms of "solving equations" the Fredholm alternative is especially nice: It tells us that if for any f there is at most one g with g=f+Ag,k then there is always exactly one. That is, compactness and uniqueness together imply existence ..." (For a multiplier operator on an L^{2}, the spectrum will coincide with the "essential support" of a function.) We discussed these sentences. If {L_{n}} is any real sequence decreasing to 0, then there must be a compact operator in l^{2} with 0 and those numbers as spectrum. Here the spectral radius is r_{T}=||T|| exactly! Back again to K(x,y), now continuous in [0,1]]^{2}. It gives rise to a compact map T from L^{2}[0,1] to itself. But also all of the outputs of T are continuous on [0,1]. So eigenfunctions are continuous. And there is a further restriction on such operators: SUM_{n=1}^{infinty} |L_{n}|^{2}<=the L^{2} norm of K(x,y) on [0,1]]^{2}. So the sequence of eigenvalues must be square-summable (a Hilbert-Schmidt operator). In fact, it turns out that the eigenfunction expansion for Tf must converge absolutely and uniformly to Tf, not a totally obvious fact (need a bit of Banach space compact operator theory). |
Thursday, February 12 | I finally gave a proof of the famous Spectral Radius Formula
(Conway's proof, although I mentioned others such as that in Lorch,
Spectral Theory.). Then I discussed
nilpotent operators, such as0 0 1 0I defined quasinilpotent: T's so that r_{T}=0 (the spectrum is just {0}). I tried and did not succeed in giving an example of an operator which was quasinilpotent but not nilpotent (we need dim H infinite). So Mr. Tedor presented problem B3, the Volterra operator, which is such an example. He inductively found estimates for ||V^{n}||. One could also try to write V and its powers in terms of an orthonormal basis, for example the one gotten from orthonomalizing x^{k}, for example. I remarked that we could work in any Banach algebra. I finished proving that an L^{2} kernel in an integral operator defines a compact linear map, completing another verification of the Ansatz previously mentioned. Here we approximated the map by one made up of a finite Fourier series (giving a finite rank map) which approximated the integral operator. We could have done something similar for the continuous case, using Stone-Weierstrass to get, say, polynomials approximating the kernel. These would give finite rank operators uniformly close to the integral operators being considered. For the long-desired Spectral Theorem for Compact Self-Adjoint Operators on a Hilbert Space, I listed the following results:
I tried to give a proof of this last result, and happily accepted help from Ms. Bao. Take a minimizing sequence, and, since T is compact, pass to a subsequence, which I will call {h_{j}} with ||h_{j}||=1 so that ||T(h_{j})-Lh_{j}||-->0 and T(h_{j})-->f. Then I claim that f is not 0. If it were, then the minimizing requirement ||T(h_{j})-Lh_{j}||-->0 would fail, since then h_{j}=(1/L)[Lh_{j}-T(h_{j})+T(h_{j})]-->(1/L)f, and therefore ||h_{j}||-->||(1/L)f|| and the sequence is 1 always. But since h_{j}-->(1/L)f, we see that T(h_{j})-->(1/L)T(f). But then f=(1/L)T(f) and we are done. You can see some references to the Palais-Smale condition, which I mentioned in class, in this book review. I stated a version of the Spectral Theorem. More to come! |
Tuesday, February 10 | I stated and promised to prove (on Thursday) the spectral
radius formula.
I finally defined compact operator: the transform of a bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence. So the image of the unit ball is relatively compact. I went over conditions related to compactness in a metric space, included being totally bounded. The identity mapping is compact iff dim H <infty (so eigenspaces of compact maps are finite dimensional). A compact mapping is continuous. The sum of compact mappings is compact. The compact maps are a two-sided ideal in L(H). The compact mappings are norm-closed in L(H). A map in L(H) is compact iff it is the limit of maps with finite dimensional range. The proofs used 3 epsilon arguments and the totally bounded part of compactness. Several statements made which would become homework problems. We analyzed the spectrum of T(e_{j})=(1/j)e_{j}, a compact map. We introduced the Hilbert cube (sum of a_{j}e_{j} with |a_{j}|<=1/j), a compact set with empty interior. I stated the Ansatz (used as Professor Zeilberger does, meaning a principal or motivating idea) that "Integral operators are compact." (Of course, the Bergman kernel immediately shows this is false.)
I began two true versions of this ansatz: |
Thursday, February 5 |
If A in L(H) is invertible, is ||A^{-1}|| the same as
||A||^{-1}? No (just consider the A given on C^{2} by
the matrix3 0 0 2Even more information about what happens when A=A^{*}: then ||A|| is the sup of |<A(h),h>| for ||h||=1. If A is in L(H), then ker(A) is the orthogonal complement of im(A^{*}). It is not generally true that the orthogonal complement of the ker(A) is the image: we got an example (just e_{j}-->(1/j)e_{j}) where the image is dense in H. Definition of the spectrum, the resolvent, and the point spectrum. How self-adjoint operator T in C^{n} has eigenvalue at least one of +/-||T||. If self-adjoint, eigenvalues are real, and eigenvectors of different eigenvalues are orthogonal. Example in C^{n} of how a Hermitean matrix has an o.n. basis of eigenvectors. The use of the Rayleigh-Ritz method to approximate eignevalues and eigenvectors by multiplications of the matrix on a "random" vector, together with genericity assumptions. (Can also be done for other transformations, including a large class of integral operators.) Then a quote from p. 196 of Conway's book on how holomorphic functions clearly extend (!?). There was some discussion of these statements, including how to define integration of vector-valued continuous functions on curves in C.
BIG Theorem Proof used (I-T)^{-1}=I+T+T^{2}+T^{3}+... when ||T||<1 several times, coupled with an amazing citation of a vector-valued version of Liouville's Theorem. A spectral theorem in this context seeks to reconstruct T from information about the spectrum of T, maybe the resolvent of T, maybe auxiliary assumptions about T. Evidence that some hypotheses are needed is the map in C^{2} given by 0 0 1 0whose spectrum is just {0}, but the operator is certainly not 0. |
Tuesday, February 3 |
Remember Math 502 will do Hahn-Banach, open mapping/closed
graph, and uniform boundedness theorem in the next few meetings.
L(H) is the set of continuous linear maps from a Hilbert space to itself, the operators on H. What do we know? L(H) has the operator norm, in which it is a Banach space. Also, if composition is used as multiplication, and S and T are operators, so is ST and ||ST||<:=||S|| ||T||: L(H) is a normed algebra. Although all Hilbert spaces are "the same"(depending on the cardinality of an orthonormal basis) [I mean all "places" in H are sort of the same] the operators are very very very different and complicated. We will see this. Simple examples of operators: multiply by an L^{infty} function; integrate against a kernel (with uniform L^{1} bounds in each variable); d/dx in an incomplete space; rightshift (an injective not surjective isometry) (same as multiplication by z in H^{2}) . We will try to prove a spectral theorem for compact self-adjoint operators. I've got to discuss everything in green. What's here follows If u(h,k) is a bounded sesquilinear mapping from HxH to the ground field, then u(h,k)=<Ah,k>=<h,Bk> for some unique operators A and B, with bounds by M on both norms. This can be used to define A^{*}. A is self-adjoint if A=A^{*}. A is normal if AA^{*}=A^{*}A. Adjoints for the examples above were given, in addition to noting that the adjoint of a finite dimensional operator given by a matrix is the transpose/conjugate. Here are some simple facts: (A+B)^{*}=A^{*}+B^{*} and (aA)^{*}=(a-bar)A^{*} and (AB)^{*}=B^{*}A^{*} and A^{*}^{*}=A. Less obvious: ||A||=||A^{*}||=sqrt{||AA^{*}||} (start with ||A(h)||^{2} and compute. Perhaps even less obvious: If H is a complex Hilbert space, then A is self-adjoint if and only if <Ah,h> is real for all h in H. (Proof: "expand" both <A(h+k),h+k> and <A(h+ik),h+ik>. Note that the last result is false for real Hilbert spaces: the matrix 0 1 -1 0provides an example. |
Thursday, January 29 | I discussed L^{2}(S^{1}) as an example of a
Hilbert space, and used the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem to show that the
exp(int) (n an integer) suitably normalized formed a complete
orthonormal set. Thus L^{2}(S^{1}) l^{2}(the
integers) are isometrically isomorphic. I looked again at square-integrable holomorphic functions. I showed using the estimate we got last time that these form a Hilbert space. Then we considered ev_{z}, a linear map from functions, f, to their values at z, f(z). This is amazingly continuous on the square-integrable holomorphic functions. Then I wanted to get the Fourier coefficients of the vector representing ev_{z} in terms of an orthonormal basis. This led to consideration of a function called the Bergman kernel. I showed that this kernel was a reproducing kernel, and that the series defining it in terms of an orthonormal basis converged uniformly on compact sets, was both holomorphic in one variable and anti-holomorphic in the other, and didn't depend on choice of basis. The series sort of looks like a giant trace. Then I computed the kernel in the case of the unit disc. This seems to give a neat formula. From the kernel, a metric can be obtained which in the case of the unit disc is the Poincaré metric, the hyperbolic metric. Biholomorphic mappings are isometries for this metric. All the reasoning shown here generalizes amazingly well in many situations. I also attempted to find a contradiction in mathematics, and succeeded only by misquoting a needed theorem. |
Tuesday, January 27 | I finished the proof of the Riesz Representation Theorem for
continuous linear functionals on a Hilbert space. Then we proved that
Hilbert space bases exist (maximal orthonormal sets; we used and
reviewed Zorn's Lemma). A Hilbert space basis is not a vector
space basis (example). Bessel's inequality and Fourier coefficients
relative to an orthonormal set. Definition of "unordered summation"
(the sum of a directed set, directed by the finite subsets of an
orthonormal basis). Bessel implies only countably many Fourier
coefficients are non-zero. Every Fourier "expansion" of a vector
in a Hilbert space relative to an orthonormal set must converge.
Suppose {w_{k}}_{k in K} is an orthonormal set in a Hilbert space H. These are equivalent:
The result above shows that any Hilbert space is isometrically isomorphic to l^{2}(K), where K is a complete orthonormal set. If K is finite, then the Hilbert space dimensional is the same as the number of elements of K, and is the same as the linear algebra dimension of K. If K is infinite, then the equation (countable)·(infinite)=same infinite shows that the cardinality of K doesn't change. I used the Cauchy integral formula to deduce the fact that if K is a compact subset of an open set U of C, then the sup norm of a holomorphic function on U restricted to K is estimated by the L^{2} norm of the function on a neighborhood of K. This is the beginning of the construction of the Bergman kernel, which I will complete next time. Here is a grad student talk by Lauren Kennell at Ohio State about the Bergman kernel (I think analogous to our Pizza Seminar). Google gives about 10,600 references to Bergman kernel. |
Thursday, January 22 |
I wanted to give an example so the most general example is:
take a set, S. Define l^{2}(S) to be those scalar-valued
functions whose sum is finite. Such functions have only countable
support. The set of these functions has an inner product. It is then a
small task to verify that l^{2}(S) as defined is
complete. It turns out that every Hilbert space is
isometrically isomorphic to an l^{2}(S) for some S. We proved the closest point property. Applied it to get a characterization of closest points for affine closed convex sets (a vector perpendicular to the set). For linear transformations, continuous <--> continuous at 0 <--> bounded. The bound is a norm. The collection of continuous linear maps from a normed vector space to a Banach space is a Banach space with the indicated norm (some trouble showing that it is complete!). Example of a non-continuous linear map between normed vector spaces. Is the Axiom of Choice needed to give an explicit example of a non-continous linear map from one Banach space to another? Goal (for next time) Prove the Riesz Representation Theorem for linear functionals on Hilbert space. Advertisement I would like students to give presentations about two interesting Hilbert spaces: one is square-integrable holomorphic functions, and the other is almost periodic functions. |
Tuesday, January 20 |
TVS, LCTVS, seminorm, topology defined by seminorms, why is it a
TVS?, convex set, why is it a LCTVS?, Hausdorff LCTVS,
norm, (translation-invariant) metric, semi-inner product, inner
product, Cauchy-Bunyakovsky-Schwarz inequality, norm from inner product, closest point
property, Dirichlet problem, other examples.
Here is Gowers' approach to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. |
Maintained by greenfie@math.rutgers.edu and last modified 1/20/2004.