Is a Hilbert space over the quaternions separable?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of Hilbert spaces, particularly focusing on their dimensionality and separability, with specific reference to spaces defined over the quaternions. Participants explore definitions, distinctions between finite and infinite dimensional spaces, and the implications of these properties on separability.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines a Hilbert space as \(\mathbb{R}^n\) with the Euclidean norm, questioning its validity and the nature of spaces over the quaternions.
  • Another participant notes that while finite dimensional Euclidean spaces and infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces are similar, they are typically treated as distinct concepts.
  • There is uncertainty about the use of quaternions as a scalar field for vector spaces, with one participant suggesting it is possible but requires further exploration.
  • A participant emphasizes that the definition of Hilbert space should focus on the presence of an inner product rather than dimensionality, and discusses the confusion surrounding the concept of dimension.
  • It is mentioned that for a Hilbert space to be separable, it must have a countable dense subset, which is linked to the existence of a countable maximal orthonormal set.
  • One participant references Bourbaki's definitions, arguing that dimensionality should not factor into the definition of a Hilbert space.
  • Another participant cites Dieudonné's work, indicating a shared perspective on the definitions and properties of Hilbert spaces.
  • There is a suggestion that the distinction between finite and infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces may not be of interest to many in the community.
  • One participant expresses a desire to conclude the discussion, suggesting that the question may be irrelevant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and properties of Hilbert spaces, particularly regarding dimensionality and separability. There is no consensus on whether finite dimensional spaces should be classified as Hilbert spaces, and the relevance of the question itself is contested.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the potential confusion surrounding the definitions of dimensionality and separability in Hilbert spaces, indicating that these concepts may depend on specific interpretations and definitions.

humanino
Messages
2,538
Reaction score
8
Please forgive this physicist's thread :

I can define a Hilbert space that is :
1) [tex]\mathbb{R}^n[/tex] with the euclidian norm, especially on a real field, and which is finite dimensional : is it right ? This is the most stupid question ever.
2) over the quaternions [tex]\mathbb{H}[/tex] ?
3) if the dimension is infinite non-countable, it is not separable. There is no need to talk about topological or metrical separability, the two coincide.

Please some one answer. It is due to questions [thread=44301]here[/thread].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) It's partly a matter of definition. Finite dimensional Euclidean spaces and Hilbert (infinite dimensional) are very similar, but usually the terms are kept separate.

2) I've never seen anyone use quarternions as the scalar field for a vector space. I suppose it's possible, but it would have to be worked out.

3) The topology of a metric space is determined by the metric. I doubt if there is a distinction in the use of the term separable, but I'm a little rusty here.
 
To me, Hilbert space is distinguished not by tis dimension, but by the rpesence of an inner product. Thus a finite dimensional Hilbert space is finite dimensional euclidean space equipped with its inner product.

The notion of dimension of a hilbert space can be confusing. for a vector space the dimension is usually the cardinality of an maximal independent set. For any hilbert space, this is never countably infinite.

Sometimes the dimension of a hilbert space on the other hand is thought of as the cardinality of a maximal orthonormal set, which can be countably infinite, as in the case of "little L2".

For a hilbert space to be separable as a topological space, i.e. to have a countable dense subset, it is necessary and sufficient to have an at most countable maximal orthonormal set.

There is in fact only one infinite dimensional, separable hilbert space, namely "little L2", up to isomorphism.
 
Since i am french, I always referred to Bourbaki for what matters of semantics. They defined a Hilbert space independently of the dimensionality, finite or infinite. I appreciate the answers. Thanks.

EDIT : I don't see any reason why dimensionality should occur in the definition of a Hilbert space
 
Last edited:
the book: foundations of modern analysis, by the fine french writer Dieudonne', was my source for these remarks.
 
Thank you mathwonk. I understand you go in the same direction as i do. Indeed Dieudonne is one of the Bourbaki guys.

Yet mathman seem to imply there is a distinction, and finite dimensional Hilbert spaces are not accepted.
 
i think he just means they are not the hilbert spaces of interest to many people.
 
I totally agree. This question is kind of irrelevant anyway. It keeps going on in the other forum, I wanted to make it stop for that reason.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K