Banach's inverse operator theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the proof of Banach's inverse operator theorem as presented in Kolmogorov and Fomin's text. Participants are particularly focused on the density of certain sets, specifically how \( M_N \) is dense in \( P_0 \) and the implications of this density in the context of the theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the proof that \( P_0 \subset \overline{M_N} \) and questions the reasoning behind starting from \( z \in P \cap M_n \) instead of \( x \in P_0 \).
  • Another participant suggests that since \( M_n \subseteq M_N \), \( M_N \) is also dense in \( P \), and notes that \( P_0 \) is an open subset of \( P \).
  • A participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the openness of \( P_0 \) and clarifies that \( P \) is an open subset of the sphere \( S \).
  • Several participants discuss the relationship between \( P_0 \) and the sphere \( S \), with one suggesting that translating \( P \) to center at the origin maintains its inclusion in \( S \).
  • There is a debate about whether \( S \) is centered at \( 0 \), with one participant concluding that it is not necessarily so, leading to further exploration of the implications for \( P_0 \).
  • A later reply proposes a method to show that \( M_N \) is dense in \( P_0 \) by constructing a sequence from \( M_n \) that converges to an element in \( P_0 \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and confusion regarding the proof's details. While some points are clarified, there remains uncertainty about the implications of certain assumptions and the relationships between the sets involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants have noted limitations in their understanding of the proof, particularly regarding the definitions of the sets involved and the assumptions about their properties. There are unresolved questions about the specific characteristics of the sphere \( S \) and its relation to the sets \( P \) and \( P_0 \).

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