2 definitions and a theorem relating them

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equivalence of two norms, p and q, on a vector space E, and their implications for the topology induced on E. It is established that p and q are equivalent if there exist constants c and C such that c p(x) ≤ q(x) ≤ C p(x) for all x in E. The theorem states that p and q induce the same topology on E if and only if they are equivalent. The conversation includes an attempt to prove this theorem by demonstrating that neighborhoods defined by p and q are interchangeable.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with norms and their definitions
  • Knowledge of topological concepts, specifically neighborhood systems
  • Basic proof techniques in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions and properties of norms in vector spaces
  • Learn about neighborhood systems in topology
  • Explore the concept of equivalence in mathematical analysis
  • Review proof strategies for theorems in functional analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying functional analysis, topology, or linear algebra, as well as educators looking to deepen their understanding of norm equivalence and its implications for topology.

dextercioby
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
13,409
Reaction score
4,201

Homework Statement



Let E be a vector space and p,q 2 norms on it. By definition p,q induce the same topology on E, iff they assign the same neighborhood basis to the 0 vector. *QUESTION: What does the bolded part mean ? Does this mean that, if whatever A included in the system (=basis?) induced by p, A is included in a certain B in the system induced by q and viceversa, i.e. any B in the system induced by q is included in a certain A induced by p ? If so, then see my arguments below.

The 2nd definition would be:

E a vector space and p, q norms on it. p, q are said to be equivalent iff there exist c, C>0 such as

[tex]c p(x) \leq q(x) \leq C p(x), ~\forall x \in E[/tex]

The theorem would be the equivalence of the 2 definitions, namely

Theorem: p,q are equivalent iff they induce the same topology on E.

The problem would be to prove the theorem.

The Attempt at a Solution



Assume p, q equivalent. Then if [itex]\epsilon >0[/itex], [itex]\{ x\in E, p(x) \leq \epsilon/c \}[/itex] is a n-hood system of 0 wrt p. Let A be one of the n-hoods in this system. Then [itex]A\subseteq \{x\in E, q(x) \leq\epsilon \}[/itex] ?? That would mean that [itex]\{x\in E, q(x) \leq\epsilon \}[/itex] is also a n-hood system of 0 induced by q. Using now the 2nd inequality would mean

Let [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex]. Then [itex]\{x\in E, q(x)\leq \epsilon/C \} is a n-hood system of 0 induced by q and let B be a n-hood from it. Does it mean (using the 2nd inequality in the definition of equivalence) that:<br /> <br /> [tex]B\subseteq \{x\in E, p(x)\leq \epsilon\}[/tex] ?? <br /> <br /> If so, then the 2 systems of n-hoods would be the same (??) so that p,q induce the same topology. <br /> <br /> This would be half the proof. How's the other half ?[/itex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K