Question regarding basis of function space

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of an infinite basis in function spaces, particularly regarding polynomials and their relationship to Taylor expansions. It clarifies that while polynomials can form a dense set in C[0,1], they do not serve as a basis for all continuous functions since some smooth functions have Taylor expansions that yield zero. The distinction between a Hamel basis, which requires finite linear combinations, and a Schauder basis, which allows infinite combinations, is emphasized. The set of polynomials is linearly independent and spans the space in a Schauder sense but is not a Hamel basis for C[0,1]. The conversation highlights the complexities of defining bases in infinite-dimensional spaces.
Keldon7
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I only possesses a rudimentary understanding of Linear Algebra so I'm not going to be rigorous in my explanation, but is the concept of an infinite basis well defined? More specifically, I was thinking about how the polynomials could form a basis for function space, given that every function has a Taylor expansion which is a linear combination of the polynomials.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you want to say the set of polynomials are to represent a basis, you need to talk about the notion of convergence or what topology you are using on the function space. For example, consider C[0,1], the continuous real functions on [0,1] as your function space where convergence ##f_n\rightarrow f## means the sequence ##f_n## converges uniformly to ##f##. Now, it is true that the set of polynomials form a basis in the sense that given any ##f## and ##\epsilon > 0##, you can find a polynomial p with ##\|f-p\|<\epsilon##. We say that the set of polynomials is dense in C[0,1] and they form a topological basis. But that is not the same thing as saying every function in C[0,1], even if it has derivatives of all orders, can be well approximated by a Taylor polynomial. There are infinitely smooth functions whose Taylor expansion just gives 0. Taylor polynomials are too specialized for that particular job.
 
In infinite dimensional spaces there may be two different types of "bases".

A "Hamel basis" is an infinite set such that any vector in the vector space can be written as a linear combination of a finite number of vectors in the basis. The functions 1, x, x^2, ...,x^n, ... form a Hamel basis for the space of all polynomials but not for the set of (real) analytic functions (a real valued function on the real numbers is "analytic" if and only if it is equal to its Taylor series). It can be shown (assuming axiom of choice) that every vector space has a Hamel basis.

If you have a topology on your vector space, and so a notion of "convergence", a more general concept of "basis" is, as LKurtz said, a set of vectors such that any vector can be written as a possibly infinite linear combination. The functions 1, x, x^2, ...,x^n, ... form a basis, in this sense, for the space of all (real) analytic functions.
 
I don't know what you mean by well-defined, but a (Hamel) basis is a linearly-independent set that spans the space , or as said in both replies, a L.I set such
that for all f in the space, there is a linear combination of the base elements that converges to f. You can check that for any n, the set {1,x,x2,...,xn} is linearly-independent in C[0,1], and spans in the Schauder sense, and, in this sense, it is infinite.
 
Bacle2 said:
but a (Hamel) basis is a linearly-independent set that spans the space , or as said in both replies, a L.I set such
that for all f in the space, there is a linear combination of the base elements that converges to f.
No - there should be no mention of convergence here.

{1, x, x^2, ...} isn't a Hamel basis for C[0,1], but as you somewhat indicate, it's a Schauder basis.
 
Yes, I did sort-of mix up both cases; my bad--I should stop posting at 3 a.m.

Still, for any n, the mentioned set is linearly-independent.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K