Statement in Cohen-Tanoudji I don't understand

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of dual spaces in the context of finite-dimensional vector spaces, particularly focusing on the isomorphism between a space X and its dual space X^*. Participants are exploring the implications of dimensionality on these spaces and the nature of linear functionals.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the conditions under which the dual space is isomorphic to the original space, particularly in finite dimensions. There are discussions about the nature of linear functionals and the implications of different types of duals (algebraic vs. topological).

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the relationship between linear functionals and the inner product in Hilbert spaces, suggesting a bijection exists in finite dimensions. However, there remains a lack of consensus on the implications of cardinality and the definitions of dual spaces, with ongoing exploration of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

There are references to the need for clarity on whether the dual being discussed is algebraic or topological, as well as the implications of finite dimensionality on the properties of these spaces. Participants are also reflecting on the need to revisit foundational concepts from linear algebra to understand the isomorphism.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
He writes, talking about the ket space X of a physical system,

In general, the dual space [itex]X^*[/itex] and the state space [itex]X[/itex] are not isomorphic, except of course, if [itex]X[/itex] is finite dimensional.

Can someone explain why they are isom. in the event of finite dimensionality?

For instance, say X is finite. To every |x> in X is associated the linear functional [itex]<x|[/itex] (the "inner product functional"). But also, given any (non-identity) linear operator A on X, <x|A is a new linear functionnal on X, is it not*? So that makes the cardinality of [itex]X^*[/itex] greater than the cardinality of X, so there can be no bijection between them.

What's wrong?*I should say potentially new, because if A maps every |x1> towards |x2>'s such that, by miracle, <x|x1>=<x|x2>, then <x| and <x|A really are the same functional...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't get it. That dual is the algebraic dual or the topological dual ? (In the case of finite dim. LTS they coincide, so it doesn't matter.)

How can you infer that " the cardinality of X^{*} is greater than the cardinality of X" based on what you've written ?

Daniel.
 
Ok, my counter-exemple's not good. But my main question remains. Why are X and it's dual isomorphic in the even that X is finite dimensional?

(The dual X^* is the set of all linear functionals on X.. I guess that's the algebraic dual?)
 
In a Hilbert space you can show every linear functional arises as the inner product with some element in the space. There's your bijection. Of course, having the same cardinality does not entail having the same dimension, but you can show the image of a basis in the space under this bijection is a basis in the dual space.
 
quasar987 said:
Ok, my counter-exemple's not good. But my main question remains. Why are X and it's dual isomorphic in the even that X is finite dimensional?

(The dual X^* is the set of all linear functionals on X.. I guess that's the algebraic dual?)

For complex Hilbert spaces, X and X' ( with X' the topological dual) are isometrically complex conjugate isomorphic, by the Riesz representation theorem.

If the Hilbert space is finite dimensional, then the topological dual and the algebraic dual coincide and the isometric complex conjugate isomorphism is obviously still valid.

If your initial space X was not a linear topological space, but merely a finite dimensional linear space, then you'd have to go back to the linear algebra course and search for a method to prove the complex conjugate isomorphism.

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K