Banach's inverse operator theorem

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the proof of Banach's inverse operator theorem as presented in Kolmogorov and Fomin's work. The main confusion arises regarding the density of the set P_0 in M_N, particularly how to show that P_0 is contained within the closure of M_N. Participants clarify that M_n is dense in P, and since P_0 is an open subset of P, it follows that M_N is also dense in P. The conversation concludes with a realization that any element in P_0 can be approximated by elements from M_N, resolving the initial confusion. Ultimately, the proof's logic is affirmed, leading to a clearer understanding of the theorem's implications.
DavideGenoa
Messages
151
Reaction score
5
Dear friends, I have been trying in vain for a long time to understand the proof given in Kolmogorov and Fomin's of Banach's theorem of the inverse operator. At p. 230 it is said that M_N is dense in P_0 because M_n is dense in P.

I am only able to see the proof that (P\cap M_n)-y_0 \subset P_0 and that (P\cap M_n)-y_0 \subset M_N there.
I obviously realize that P_0=P-y_0 and therefore P_0\cap(M_n-y_0)=(P\cap M_n)-y_0 \subset M_N, but I don't see why P_0\subset\overline{M_N}...
What I find most perplexing is that, in order to prove the density of P_0 in M_N, I would expect something like Let x be such that x\in P_0... then x\in \overline{M_N}, while, there, we "start" from z\in P\cap M_n such that z-y_0\in P_0, but I don't think that all x\in P_0 are such that x+y_0\in P... (further in the proof we look for a \lambda such that \alpha<\|\lambda y\|<\beta, i.e. such that \lambda y\in P_0)

Has anyone a better understanding than mine? Thank you very much for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint: ##M_n\subseteq M_N## so ##M_N## is also dense in ##P##. And ##P_0## is an open subset of ##P##.
 
Thank you so much!
micromass said:
##P_0## is an open subset of ##P##.
Forgive me: I don't know how to prove that...
 
DavideGenoa said:
Thank you so much!Forgive me: I don't know how to prove that...

Indeed, because it's not true. What I meant is that ##P## is an open subset of the sphere ##S##. And ##M_n## (and thus ##M_N##) are dense in there. Apologies for the inconvenience.
 
Thank you very much: no problem for any mistyping! I see that ##P## is an open subset of the open sphere ##S##, therefore ##P\subset\overline{S}##, and ##M_n## is chosen such that ##S\subset\overline{M_n}##, and ##\overline{M_n} \subset\overline{M_N}## since ##M_n\subset M_N##, so I realize ##M_N## is dense in ##P## (because ##P\subset\overline{S}\subset\overline{M_n}\subset\overline{M_N} ##), but I don't see why ##P_0\subset\overline{M_N}##... :confused:
 
DavideGenoa said:
Thank you very much: no problem for any mistyping! I see that ##P## is an open subset of the open sphere ##S##, therefore ##P\subset\overline{S}##, and ##M_n## is chosen such that ##S\subset\overline{M_n}##, and ##\overline{M_n} \subset\overline{M_N}## since ##M_n\subset M_N##, so I realize ##M_N## is dense in ##P## (because ##P\subset\overline{S}\subset\overline{M_n}\subset\overline{M_N} ##), but I don't see why ##P_0\subset\overline{M_N}##... :confused:

##P_0## is an open subset of the sphere ##S## too.
 
Ehm... I cannot see that... :blushing: Of course ##y_0\in M_n\cap S## and ##P\subset S##, and therefore ##P_0\subset S-y_0##, but I see nothing else relevant...
 
DavideGenoa said:
Ehm... I cannot see that... :blushing: Of course ##y_0\in M_n\cap S## and ##P\subset S##, and therefore ##P_0\subset S-y_0##, but I see nothing else relevant...

It's intuitive, no? We know that ##P## is (part of) a sphere inside the sphere ##S##, but it's centered at ##y_0##. Then we translate ##P## to be centered at the origin. I think it should be clear that this translation is still part of ##S##.
 
Thank you so much! Is ##S## is centred in ##0##? In that case, yes, I see that ##P_0\subset S##, because if it weren't so, then ##\beta> r## where ##r## is the radius of ##S##, but, in that case, for any ##\varepsilon>0## we could find a ##x\in P## such that ##\|x-y_0\|>\beta-\varepsilon>r-\varepsilon## and, chosing ##\varepsilon=\beta- r##, we would contradict ##P\subset S##, I think. Though, I am not sure how we can chose a ##S## centred in ##0##...
 
  • #10
DavideGenoa said:
Thank you so much! Is ##S## is centred in ##0##? In that case, yes, I see that ##P_0\subset S##, because if it weren't so, then ##\beta> r## where ##r## is the radius of ##S##, but, in that case, for any ##\varepsilon>0## we could find a ##x\in P## such that ##\|x-y_0\|>\beta-\varepsilon>r-\varepsilon## and, chosing ##\varepsilon=\beta- r##, we would contradict ##P\subset S##, I think. Though, I am not sure how we can chose a ##S## centred in ##0##...

Haha, ok, ##S## is not necessarily centered in ##0##. Missed that one.

OK, so ##(4)## basically proves that if ##z\in P\cap M_n##, then ##z-y_0\in P_0\cap M_N##.

So, to prove ##M_N##is dense in ##P_0##. Take an arbitrary ##x\in P_0##. This is of the form ##x = x^\prime - y_0## with ##x^\prime \in P##. Since ##M_n##is dense in ##P##, we can find a sequence ##(x_n)_n\subseteq M_n\cap P## such that ##x_n\rightarrow x^\prime##. Then obviously by ##(4)##, we have ##(x_n - y_0)_n \subseteq P_0\cap M_N## and ##x_n - y_0\rightarrow x##
 
  • #11
If the book had used a handful of words more...
I deeply thank you... Now everything is clear.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
998