MHB Linear Mappings are Lipschitz Continuous .... D&K Example 1.8.14 .... ....

Click For Summary
Linear mappings from R^n to R^p are Lipschitz continuous and uniformly continuous, as stated in Duistermaat and Kolk's Example 1.8.14. To prove this, one must show that the inequality ||Ax - Ax'|| ≤ k ||x - x'|| holds for some constant k. The discussion involves manipulating the expressions to demonstrate that the Lipschitz condition is satisfied. Participants confirm the correctness of the proof approach and emphasize the independence of the constant k from the variables involved. Overall, the conversation focuses on clarifying the proof of Lipschitz continuity for linear mappings.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk ...

I am focused on Chapter 1: Continuity ... ...

I need help with an aspect of Example 1.8.14 ... ...

The start of Duistermaat and Kolk's Example 1.8.14 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7753In the above example we read the following:

"... ... any linear mapping $$A \ : \ \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^p$$, whether bijective or not, is Lipschitz continuous and therefore uniformly continuous ... ... "I am somewhat unsure regarding proving this statement ... but I think the proof goes like the following:


For $$A \ : \ \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^p$$ to be Lipschitz continuous we require

$$\mid \mid Ax - Ax' \mid \mid \le k \mid \mid x - x' \mid \mid \text{ where } x, x' \in \text{dom} (A)$$ ... ... ... (1)now we have:

$$\mid \mid Ax \mid \mid \le k \mid \mid x \mid \mid$$ ... ... ... (2)Now ... maybe put $$x = x' - x''$$

... then (2) becomes $$\mid \mid A(x' - x'') \mid \mid = \mid \mid Ax' - Ax'' \mid \mid \le k \mid \mid x' - x'' \mid \mid$$

which is the required result ...Is that correct?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, and you can be a bit more self-confident (Happy)
(Remark which may be superfluous: Your $k$ is independent of $x$, $x'$, $x''$.)
 
Krylov said:
Yes, and you can be a bit more self-confident (Happy)
(Remark which may be superfluous: Your $k$ is independent of $x$, $x'$, $x''$.)
Indeed, Krylov... you are probably right :)

Thanks for your reply ...

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K