MHB Normed and Inner Product Spaces .... Garling, Corollary 11.3.2 ....

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding Corollary 11.3.2 from D. J. H. Garling's book, which is a corollary to the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality. It establishes that equality holds if and only if the real part of the inner product equals the product of the norms of the vectors. This condition is equivalent to either one of the vectors being zero or the other being a non-negative scalar multiple of the first. The proof involves demonstrating that if the inner product condition is satisfied, the vectors must be linearly dependent. Overall, the thread seeks clarity on the rigorous implications of this corollary in the context of normed spaces.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading D. J. H. Garling's book: "A Course in Mathematical Analysis: Volume II: Metric and Topological Spaces, Functions of a Vector Variable" ... ...

I am focused on Chapter 11: Metric Spaces and Normed Spaces ... ...

I need some help to fully understand the proof of Corollary 11.3.2 ... (Corollary to the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality ... )

Garling's statement and proof of Corollary 11.3.2 reads as follows:View attachment 8960
View attachment 8961In the above text from Garling we read the following:

" ... ... Equality holds if and only if $$\mathscr{R} \ \langle x, y \rangle = \| x \| . \| y \|$$, which is equivalent to the condition stated. ... ... "
Can someone please rigorously demonstrate that the condition that ... $$\mathscr{R} \ \langle x, y \rangle = \| x \| . \| y \| $$ ...

... is equivalent to ... either $$y = 0$$ or $$x = \alpha y$$ with $$\alpha \ge 0$$ ... ...Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Garling - 1 - Corollary 11.3.2 ... ... PART 1 ... .png
    Garling - 1 - Corollary 11.3.2 ... ... PART 1 ... .png
    3.1 KB · Views: 124
  • Garling - 2 - Corollary 11.3.2 ... ... PART 2 ... .png
    Garling - 2 - Corollary 11.3.2 ... ... PART 2 ... .png
    5.5 KB · Views: 142
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
Can someone please rigorously demonstrate that the condition that ... $$\mathscr{R} \ \langle x, y \rangle = \| x \| . \| y \| $$ ...

... is equivalent to ... either $$y = 0$$ or $$x = \alpha y$$ with $$\alpha \ge 0$$ ... ...
${\frak R}\langle x,y\rangle \leqslant |\langle x,y\rangle| \leqslant \|x\|\|y\|$, and (by Cauchy-Schwarz) equality can only hold in the second of those inequalities if $x$ and $y$ are linearly dependent. In that case, either $y$ is zero or $x$ must be a scalar multiple of $y$.

To see that $\alpha \geqslant0$, if $x = \alpha y$ then $\langle x,y\rangle = \langle \alpha y,y\rangle = \alpha \|y\|^2$. Also, $\|x\|\|y\| = |\alpha|\|y\|^2$. So if ${\frak R}\langle x,y\rangle = \|x\|\|y\|$ (and $y\ne0$) it follows that ${\frak R}\alpha = |\alpha|$. For a complex number $\alpha$, that implies that $\alpha$ is real and non-negative.
 


Sure, I can try to help explain this for you. First, let's break down the statement and proof of Corollary 11.3.2. The corollary is a result that follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality, which states that for any two vectors x and y in a normed space, we have:

| \langle x, y \rangle | \le \| x \| \cdot \| y \|

with equality holding if and only if x and y are linearly dependent. This means that either x = \alpha y or y = \alpha x for some scalar \alpha.

Now, let's look at Garling's statement and proof. He says that equality in the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality holds if and only if \mathscr{R} \ \langle x, y \rangle = \| x \| \cdot \| y \|, which is equivalent to the condition stated. This condition is that either y = 0 or x = \alpha y with \alpha \ge 0.

To see why this is true, we can consider two cases.

Case 1: y = 0. In this case, it is clear that \mathscr{R} \ \langle x, y \rangle = \| x \| \cdot \| y \|, since both sides are equal to 0.

Case 2: y \neq 0. In this case, we can write y as a scalar multiple of x, i.e. y = \alpha x for some scalar \alpha. Then, we have:

\mathscr{R} \ \langle x, y \rangle = \mathscr{R} \ \langle x, \alpha x \rangle = \alpha \mathscr{R} \ \langle x, x \rangle = \alpha \| x \|^2

On the other hand, \| x \| \cdot \| y \| = \| x \| \cdot \| \alpha x \| = \| x \| \cdot | \alpha | \| x \| = | \alpha | \| x \|^2

Since x \neq 0 (otherwise y would be 0), we have \| x \| \neq 0, which means that | \alpha | = \alpha. Therefore, we have:

\mathscr{R} \ \langle x, y \rangle = \| x \| \cdot \| y \| if and
 
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 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K