Operator Norm .... differences between Browder and Field ....

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Norm Operator
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the differences between the definitions of the "operator norm" for linear transformations as presented by Andrew Browder in "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" and Michael Field in "Essential Real Analysis." Browder defines the operator norm as $$\lvert \lvert T \rvert \rvert = \text{ sup} \{ \lvert Tv \rvert \ : \ v \in \mathbb{R}^n , \ \lvert v \rvert \le 1 \}$$ while Field's definition is $$\lvert \lvert T \rvert \rvert = \text{ sup} \{ \lvert Tv \rvert \ : \ v \in \mathbb{R}^n , \ \lvert v \rvert = 1 \}$$. The two definitions are equivalent, as the supremum in Browder's definition is reached when $$\lvert v \rvert = 1$$, confirming that both approaches yield the same result for the operator norm.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear transformations
  • Familiarity with operator norms
  • Knowledge of supremum and infimum concepts in analysis
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation and expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of operator norms in depth
  • Explore linear algebra applications in functional analysis
  • Review the differences between various mathematical texts on analysis
  • Learn about the implications of supremum in normed spaces
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and researchers focusing on linear algebra and functional analysis, particularly those comparing different mathematical texts and their approaches to operator norms.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reader Andrew Browder's book: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" ... ...

I am currently reading Chapter 8: Differentiable Maps and am specifically focused on Section 8.1 Linear Algebra ...

I need some help in fully understanding the differences between Andrew Browder and Michael Field (Essential Real Analysis) concerning the "operator norm" for linear transformations ...

The relevant notes form Browder read as follows:
View attachment 9367

In the above text from Browder we read the following:" ... ... A perhaps more natural way to define the distance between linear transformations is by using the so-called "operator norm" defined by

$$\lvert \lvert T \rvert \rvert = \text{ sup} \{ \lvert Tv \rvert \ : \ v \in \mathbb{R}^n , \ \lvert v \rvert \le 1 \}
$$

... ... ... ... ... "
Now the above definition, differs (apparently anyway) from the definition of the operator norm by Michael Field in his book: "Essential Real Analysis" ... Field writes the following:View attachment 9368Thus Field's version of the operator norm (if we write it in Browder's notation is as follows:

$$\lvert \lvert T \rvert \rvert = \text{ sup} \{ \lvert Tv \rvert \ : \ v \in \mathbb{R}^n , \ \lvert v \rvert = 1 \}
$$
My question is as follows:

Are Browder's and Field's definition essentially the same ... if so how are they equivalent ... ... ?

Maybe in Browder's definition the supremum is actually reached when $$\lvert v \rvert = 1$$ ... ...
Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Browder - Remarks on Norm of an LT ... Section 8.1, Page 179 ... .png
    Browder - Remarks on Norm of an LT ... Section 8.1, Page 179 ... .png
    30 KB · Views: 141
  • Field - Operator Norm ... Section 9.2.1 ... Page 355 ... .png
    Field - Operator Norm ... Section 9.2.1 ... Page 355 ... .png
    7.4 KB · Views: 153
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
" ... ... A perhaps more natural way to define the distance between linear transformations is by using the so-called "operator norm" defined by

$$\lvert \lvert T \rvert \rvert = \text{ sup} \{ \lvert Tv \rvert \ : \ v \in \mathbb{R}^n , \ \lvert v \rvert \le 1 \}
$$

... ... ... ... ... "Thus Field's version of the operator norm (if we write it in Browder's notation is as follows:

$$\lvert \lvert T \rvert \rvert = \text{ sup} \{ \lvert Tv \rvert \ : \ v \in \mathbb{R}^n , \ \lvert v \rvert = 1 \}
$$

My question is as follows:

Are Browder's and Field's definition essentially the same ... if so how are they equivalent ... ... ?

Maybe in Browder's definition the supremum is actually reached when $$\lvert v \rvert = 1$$ ... ...
The two definitions are equivalent. If $v \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is nonzero and $|v|<1$, let $w = \frac v{|v|}$. Then $|w|=1$, and $$|Tv| = |T(|v|w)| = |\,|v|Tw| = |v|\,|Tw| < |Tw|.$$ So $|Tv|$ for any $v$ "inside" the unit ball is less than $|Tw|$ for the corresponding vector on the "surface" of the unit ball. It follows that to find $\sup\{|Tv|:|v|\leqslant1\}$ it is sufficient to take the supremum over $v$ with $|v|=1$.
 
Opalg said:
The two definitions are equivalent. If $v \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is nonzero and $|v|<1$, let $w = \frac v{|v|}$. Then $|w|=1$, and $$|Tv| = |T(|v|w)| = |\,|v|Tw| = |v|\,|Tw| < |Tw|.$$ So $|Tv|$ for any $v$ "inside" the unit ball is less than $|Tw|$ for the corresponding vector on the "surface" of the unit ball. It follows that to find $\sup\{|Tv|:|v|\leqslant1\}$ it is sufficient to take the supremum over $v$ with $|v|=1$.

Thanks Opalg ..

I appreciate your help ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K