Graduate Are bounded operators bounded indepedently on the function?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the criteria for boundedness of operators in function spaces, specifically questioning the validity of certain inequalities. A user initially presents an incorrect inequality for boundedness, which is then corrected by others who clarify that a bounded operator must satisfy ||Tf(x)|| ≤ C||f(x)|| for all f(x) in the space, with C being a constant independent of f(x). Confusion arises regarding the definitions and potential typos in a referenced book, leading to further debate about the correct form of the inequality. Ultimately, participants emphasize the importance of adhering to the standard definition of bounded operators to avoid misunderstandings. The conversation highlights the nuances in operator algebra and the need for precise mathematical expressions.
SeM
Hi thanks to George, I found the following criteria for boundedness:

\begin{equation}
\frac{||Bf(x)||}{||f(x)||} < ||Bf(x)||
\end{equation}

If one takes f(x) = x, and consider B = (h/id/dx - g), where g is some constant, then B is bounded in the interval 0-##\pi##. However, given that I am new to operator algebra, I am not sure whether this means that B is ALWAYS bounded for ANY f(x)?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your inequality doesn't make sense. For example if ||f(x)||=1/2, then the right hand side needs a coefficient of 2.

To answer the general questions, the operator is presumed to be an operator on some function space. Bounded operator means ||Bf(x)|| < C||f(x)|| where C is a constant independent of f(x) for all functions in the space.
 
  • Like
Likes SeM and FactChecker
mathman said:
Your inequality doesn't make sense. For example if ||f(x)||=1/2, then the right hand side needs a coefficient of 2.

To answer the general questions, the operator is presumed to be an operator on some function space. Bounded operator means ||Bf(x)|| < C||f(x)|| where C is a constant independent of f(x) for all functions in the space.

Hi Mathman, thanks for this.I made a typo there, the criterion for boundedness of an operator T should be:

\begin{equation}
\sqrt {\frac{||Tf(x)||}{||f(x)||}} < ||Tf(x)||
\end{equation}
Untitled.jpg

http://www.fjordforsk.no/Unititled.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    21.8 KB · Views: 466
  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    21.8 KB · Views: 474
Last edited by a moderator:
Your revised definition is the same (wrong) as the original. All you did was replace the letter B by the letter T, but otherwise left the expression unchanged.
 
@mathman Would it help if you posted latex for what it ought to be?
 
  • Like
Likes SeM
Mathman, As you can see from the attached image, it should be as given with the square root. I can't really find any other form, than the given one in the book, unless Kreyszig was wrong there ( in addition to the typo on the upper limit of the integral which should be 1/n thanks to some other guys answering on another thread).
 
jim mcnamara said:
@mathman Would it help if you posted latex for what it ought to be?
My first response to the statement has it. An operator T is bounded if ||Tf(x)||\le C||f(x)|| for all f(x) in the function space of interest, where C does not depend on f(x).
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker, SeM and jim mcnamara
This inequality is also the book. So why are there two inequalities for boundedness and is there a typo in the page-scan?
 
SeM said:
This inequality is also the book. So why are there two inequalities for boundedness and is there a typo in the page-scan?
You don't show the scan of the book definition, but @mathman 's definition is correct. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_operator ). The definitions that you are quoting do not make sense.
 
  • #10
FactChecker said:
You don't show the scan of the book definition, but @mathman 's definition is correct. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_operator ). The definitions that you are quoting do not make sense.

Is the scan non visible?

Please see again:

Untitled.jpg


note a typo in the upper limit, 1 should be 1/n. except for this, the last part, the inequality seems correct.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    21.8 KB · Views: 772
  • #11
SeM said:
Is the scan non visible?

Please see again:

View attachment 217369

note a typo in the upper limit, 1 should be 1/n. except for this, the last part, the inequality seems correct.
It's perfectly readable. No equation on that page is the same as equation (2) of post #3. Nothing on that page is the definition of a bounded operator. The last equation is related to the definition only to show that the example is not bounded.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
847
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
872
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K