Hi all,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I've been looking over some results from functional analysis, and have a question. It seems that often times in functional analysis, when we want to show something is true, it often suffices to show it holds for the unit ball. That is, if X is a Banach space, then define [itex] b_1(X) = \left\{ x \in X : \| x \| = 1 \right\} [/itex].

Examples of this is when calculating the operator norm of a bounded operator T, we have

[tex] \| T \| = \sup_{x \in X} \frac{ \| Tx \| }{\| x \|} = \sup_{x \in b_1(X)} \| Tx \| [/tex]

Another example is that of compact operators. One definition is that a linear operator K is compact if it maps bounded sets to relatively compact sets (sometimes called precompact sets). Equivalently, another definition is that K takes the unit ball [itex] b_1(X) [/itex] to a relatively compact set.

I'm wondering, without explicitly showing that this is true in all of these cases, why does this work? Is it because we can map elements of X to [itex] b_1(X) [/itex] by

[tex] x \mapsto \frac x{\| x \|} [/tex] ?

This map doesn't seem invertible, so I don't think it's an isomorphism between X and [itex] b_1(X) [/itex] but it might nonetheless allow us to things like cast closed subsets of X as closed subsets of [itex] b_1(X) [/itex] or something along those lines.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Compact Operators and the Unit Ball

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**