Proof of an inner product space

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
18 replies · 8K views
cabin5
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that the normed linear space [tex]l_{\infty}^{2}[/tex] is not an inner product space.


Homework Equations


parallelogram law;
[tex]\left\|x+y\right\|^2+\left\|x-y\right\|^2=2\left\|x\right\|^2+2\left\|y\right\|^2[/tex]


The Attempt at a Solution


Well, I tried to apply parallelogram law to the [tex]l_{\infty}^{2}[/tex] space where

[tex]x=(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)[/tex] and [tex]y=(\beta^1,\beta^2)\in l_{\infty}^{2}[/tex] .

[tex]\left\|x\right\|=max\left\{\left|\alpha^1\right|,\left|\alpha^2\right|\right\} and <br /> <br /> \left\|y\right\|=max\left\{\left|\beta^1\right|,\left|\beta^2\right|\right\}[/tex]

If one puts these norms into the parallelogram law equation, one gets a fuzzy expression on both sides of the equation, therefore it is important to put out expressions inside the max{} function which I could not achieve to do.

Is there another method to solve this problem or am I misapplying the law to [tex]l_{\infty}^{2}[/tex] space?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You only need a counterexample to show it's not an inner product space. Start putting some actual numbers in for the alphas and betas.
 
Is it a mathematically correct method?
 
cabin5 said:
Is it a mathematically correct method?

What would not be 'mathematical' or 'correct' about it? If I claim all primes are odd, and somebody points out 2 is even, that's enough to prove me wrong. Just do it.
 
Yes, as Dick said, proving that a general statement is NOT true by counterexample is a perfectly correct method.
 
thanks for the post!
 
well,
I tried the parallelogram law for x=(0,3) and y=(2,5) and it perfectly worked on both sides of the equation.
Should I choose the complex field for that space?

What's wrong with that?
 
Last edited:
You must have put some effort into find a case where it works. Almost all other cases don't work. Like x=(1,0) and y=(0,1). It has to work for all cases or your norm doesn't come from an inner product.
 
Finally, It worked :)
I thought any ordered pair would work as a counterexample.

Thanks a lot!
 
No, and ordered pair won't work because R2 DOES make a inner product space. This question was about [itex]l_\infty^2[/itex]. Your counterexample must be from that space. What are the vectors in that space?
 
HallsofIvy said:
No, and ordered pair won't work because R2 DOES make a inner product space. This question was about [itex]l_\infty^2[/itex]. Your counterexample must be from that space. What are the vectors in that space?

I took it to be R^2 with the max norm. You think it's bounded functions on R^2, right? It's still pretty easy to find a counterexample with bounded functions.
 
I have no clue whether one must use a bounded function or not in order to prove that.
 
The question is, what is the definition of the space l^2_infinity? Can you tell us what it is?
 
Sorry for so late reply:

The definition of [tex]l_{\infty}^{n}[/tex] :
On the linear space [tex]V_{n}(F)[/tex] with the infinity norm defined by
[tex]\left\|x\right\|_p=\left[\sum^{\infty}_{i=1}\left|\alpha^{i}\right|^p\right]^{1/p}[/tex]

where [tex]x=(\alpha^i)[/tex].
The corresponding linear space to this norm is denoted by [tex]l_{\infty}^{n}[/tex].
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
I took it to be R^2 with the max norm. You think it's bounded functions on R^2, right? It's still pretty easy to find a counterexample with bounded functions.

No, I was assuming infinite sequences {an} such that {a2n} was summable.
 
so [tex]l_{\infty}^{2}[/tex] defines that norm which is basically the square of root total sum of square of each element of 2 vectors defined over R^2 field.

Eventually , I think that you're example is correct, but besides I have no idea about whether functions defined in [tex]l_{\infty}^{2}[/tex] is bounded or not (since I didn't take any real analysis course during undergrad.)
 
HallsofIvy said:
No, I was assuming infinite sequences {an} such that {a2n} was summable.

I don't think that's what the problem is supposed to be about.
 
cabin5 said:
so [tex]l_{\infty}^{2}[/tex] defines that norm which is basically the square of root total sum of square of each element of 2 vectors defined over R^2 field.

Eventually , I think that you're example is correct, but besides I have no idea about whether functions defined in [tex]l_{\infty}^{2}[/tex] is bounded or not (since I didn't take any real analysis course during undergrad.)

I think what you just described is l^2_2. The 'infinity' usually designates a max norm (supremum) rather than a power root norm.
 
oh, ****!

you're right , It was supposed to be max norm! I miswrote the definition.