Bounded Operator: Is D:L^2(0,1) Bounded?

  • Thread starter Thread starter foxjwill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded Operator
foxjwill
Messages
350
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Is the derivative operator D:L^2(0,1)\to L^2(0,1) bounded? In other words, is there a c>0 such that for all f\in L^2(0,1),
\|Df\|\leq c\|f\|?​

Homework Equations


For all f\in L^2(0,1),
\|f\| = \int_0^1 |f|^2\,dx.​

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Here's my work:

Suppose c^2>0 satisfies the above requirements. Define f(x)=e^{(c+1)x}. Then
\|Df\| = \int_0^1 (c+1)^2e^{2(c+1)x}\,dx = (c+1)^2\|f\| > c^2\|f\|.​
But this contradicts the fact that \|Df\|\leq c^2\|f\|. Thus, D is unbounded. Q.E.D.

Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have the right kind of example but the logic is a little overcomplicated. If you define f(x)=e^(dx) then ||Df||=d^2||f||. At this point you are done since d^2 can be chosen as large as you want. So there can't be a c such that ||Df||<c||f|| for any f.
 
Dick said:
You have the right kind of example but the logic is a little overcomplicated. If you define f(x)=e^(dx) then ||Df||=d^2||f||.


No, just d||f|| ... provided d>0 ... but that is just as good.
 
g_edgar said:
No, just d||f|| ... provided d>0 ... but that is just as good.

Right. There should have been a square root on the definition of ||f|| in the original post. Thanks for catching that.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Back
Top