DavideGenoa
- 151
- 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!
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!