MHB Norm of a Bounded Linear Functional

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the norm of a bounded linear functional \(f\) on a finite-dimensional linear space \(X\) with a defined \(p\)-norm. The norm is expressed as \(\|f\| = \sup_{x \in X, \|x\|_p \neq 0} \frac{|f(x)|}{\|x\|_p}\), leading to a potential simplification using Holder's inequality. Participants explore whether this norm can be expressed in terms of the basis vectors, suggesting \(\|f\| = \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|f(x_i)|^q\right)^{1/q}\) for the dual \(q\)-norm. The conversation highlights the importance of precise notation and the need for clarity in mathematical arguments. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexities of functional analysis and the nuances of norm definitions.
Sudharaka
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone, :)

Here's a question with my answer, but I just want to confirm whether this is correct. The answer seems so obvious that I just thought that maybe this is not what the question asks for. Anyway, hope you can give some ideas on this one.

Problem:

Let \(X\) be a finite dimensional linear space. Let \(x_1,\,\cdots,\,x_n\) be a basis of \(X\). Define the norm,

\[\|x\|_p=\left\|\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i x_i\right\|_p=\|(a_1,\,\cdots,\,a_n)\|_p\]

If \(f\) is a bounded linear functional on \(X\), find the norm \(\|f\|\).

My Answer:

We have been given the following theorem;

Let \((X,\,\|\cdot\|_X)\) and \((Y,\,\|\cdot\|_{Y})\) be two normed linear spaces over \(F\) and \(B(X,\,Y)\) denote the set of all bounded linear functions from \(X\) to \(Y\). Then the function \(\|\cdot\|:\,B(X,Y)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) defined by,

\[\|T\|=\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_X\neq 0}\frac{\|T(x)\|_Y}{\|x\|_X}\]

for \(T\in B(X,\,Y)\) is a norm on \(B(X,\,Y)\).

From the above theorem we know that the set of all bounded linear functionals, \(B(X,\,\mathbb{R})\) has the norm,

\[\|f\|=\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\|x\|_p}=\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i|^p\right)^{1/p}}\]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sudharaka said:
From the above theorem we know that the set of all bounded linear functionals, \(B(X,\,\mathbb{R})\) has the norm,

\[\|f\|=\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\|x\|_p}=\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i|^p\right)^{1/p}}\]
That's the definition of $\|f\|$. You probably have to express it in terms of $f$ and $x_1,\dots,x_n$,
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
That's the definition of $\|f\|$. You probably have to express it in terms of $f$ and $x_1,\dots,x_n$,

Thanks very much for the reply. Well I can substitute \(x=a_1 x_1+\cdots+a_n x_n\) and get,

\[\|f\|=\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i|^p\right) ^{1/p}}=\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|a_1 f(x_1)+\cdots+a_n f(x_n)|}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i|^p\right) ^{1/p}}\]

But can I simplify any more? I don't think so. Correct? :)
 
You may because you need to find not what this fraction equals, but what its supremum is. Could it be that $\|f\|=\max(\|f(x_1)\|,\dots,\|f(x_n)\|)$? I just don't remember this stuff very well.
 
At a first glance, without thinking about it carefully, I would assume that the dual of a $p$-norm ought to be a $q$-norm, where $$\frac1p + \frac1q = 1.$$ So my guess is that $$\|f\| = \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^n|f(x_i)|^q\Bigr)^{\!1/q}.$$
 
Opalg said:
At a first glance, without thinking about it carefully, I would assume that the dual of a $p$-norm ought to be a $q$-norm, where $$\frac1p + \frac1q = 1.$$ So my guess is that $$\|f\| = \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^n|f(x_i)|^q\Bigr)^{\!1/q}.$$

I don't know if there's a false in this argument and if there is please let me know,

\begin{eqnarray}

\|f\|&=&\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\|x\|_p}\\

&=&\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i|^p\right) ^{1/p}}\\

&=&\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i f(x_i)\right|}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i|^p\right) ^{1/p}}

\end{eqnarray}

By the Holder's inequality we get,

\[\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i f(x_i)\right|\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|a_i f(x_i)\right|\leq \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|a_i\right|^p\right)^{1/p}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|f(x_i)\right|^q\right)^{1/q}\]

So we see that for a proper choice of \(x\) we can make,

\[\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i f(x_i)\right|=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|a_i\right|^p\right)^{1/p}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|f(x_i)\right|^q\right)^{1/q}\]

Therefore,

\[\|f\|=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|f(x_i)\right|^q \right)^{1/q}\]
 
Sudharaka said:
I don't know if there's a false in this argument and if there is please let me know,

\begin{eqnarray}

\|f\|&=&\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\|x\|_p}\\

&=&\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{|f(x)|}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i|^p\right) ^{1/p}}\\

&=&\sup_{x\in X,\, \|x\|_p\neq 0}\frac{\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i f(x_i)\right|}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i|^p\right) ^{1/p}}

\end{eqnarray}

By the Holder's inequality we get,

\[\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i f(x_i)\right|\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|a_i f(x_i)\right|\leq \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|a_i\right|^p\right)^{1/p}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|f(x_i)\right|^q\right)^{1/q}\]

So we see that for a proper choice of \(x\) we can make,

\[\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i f(x_i)\right|=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|a_i\right|^p\right)^{1/p}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|f(x_i)\right|^q\right)^{1/q}\]

Therefore,

\[\|f\|=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|f(x_i)\right|^q \right)^{1/q}\]
Yes, that looks good – except that you have swept some of the messy detail under the carpet by saying "for a proper choice of \(x\)...". (Wink)
 
As an observation, instead of writing $||x||_p \ne 0$, you can also write $x \ne 0$.
It is an axiom of a norm that these two are identical.
 
Opalg said:
Yes, that looks good – except that you have swept some of the messy detail under the carpet by saying "for a proper choice of \(x\)...". (Wink)

:p Yeah, need to find the method to solve the problem quickly without going into too much detail. Grad studies is a race against time; I always find myself trying hard to do all the problems they give us, all throughout the week, but until the last moment I cannot complete them. Thank you very much for all your help. I really appreciate it. :)

I like Serena said:
As an observation, instead of writing $||x||_p \ne 0$, you can also write $x \ne 0$.
It is an axiom of a norm that these two are identical.

Thanks very much, I missed this little point. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K