MHB R^n as a normed space .... D&K Lemma 1.1.7 .... .... some inequalities ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequalities Space
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the proof of Lemma 1.1.7 (iv) from "Multidimensional Real Analysis I" by Duistermaat and Kolk, specifically regarding the inequality |x_j| ≤ (∑|x_j|²)^(1/2). The participant expresses concern about the validity of the initial equation |x_j| = (|x_j|²)^(1/2) when considering negative values. A clarification is provided that the square root of a squared value is the absolute value, emphasizing that √(x²) = |x| holds true under certain conditions. Suggestions are made to approach the proof by considering the non-negativity of the "Stuff" in the expansion of squared sums. The conversation concludes with acknowledgment of the insights shared, reinforcing the importance of rigor in mathematical proofs.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk ...

I am focused on Chapter 1: Continuity ... ...

I need help with an aspect of Lemma 1,1,7 (iv) ...

Duistermaat and Kolk"s Lemma 1.1.7 reads as follows:
View attachment 7877
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7878

At the start of the proof of (iv) we read the following:

" ... ... $$\mid x_j \mid \le \left( \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } \mid x_j \mid^2 \right)^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = \| x \|$$ ... ... ... "
Suppose now we want to show, formally and rigorously that $$\mid x_j \mid \le \left( \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } \mid x_j \mid^2 \right)^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } }$$Maybe we could start with (obviously true ...)

$$\mid x_j \mid = ( \mid x_j \mid^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } }$$ ... ... ... ... ... (1)

then we can write

$$\mid x_j \mid = ( \mid x_j \mid^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 }} \le ( \mid x_1 \mid^2 + \mid x_2 \mid^2 + \ ... \ ... \ + \mid x_j \mid^2 + \ ... \ ... \ + \mid x_n \mid^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } $$and we note that$$( \mid x_1 \mid^2 + \mid x_2 \mid^2 + \ ... \ ... \ + \mid x_j \mid^2 + \ ... \ ... \ + \mid x_n \mid^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = ( x_1^2 + x_2^2 + \ ... \ ... \ + x_j^2 + \ ... \ ... \ + x_n^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = \| x \|$$ ... ... ... ... (3) ... BUT ... I worry that (formally anyway) (1) is invalid ... or compromised at least ...

... for suppose for example $$x_j = -3$$ then ...... we have LHS of (1) = $$\mid x_j \mid = \mid -3 \mid = 3$$... BUT ...

RHS of (1)$$ = ( \mid x_j \mid^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = ( \mid -3 \mid^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = ( 3^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = 9^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = \pm 3 $$My question is as follows:

How do we deal with the above situation ... and

... how do we formally and rigorously demonstrate that $$\mid x_j \mid \le \left( \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } \mid x_j \mid^2 \right)^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } $$Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
RHS of (1)$$ = ( \mid x_j \mid^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = ( \mid -3 \mid^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = ( 3^2 )^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = 9^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } = \pm 3 $$

How do we deal with the above situation ... and

$9^{1/2}\ne\pm 3\;rather\;9^{1/2} = 3$

You may be thinking about solutions to $x^2 = 9$. That's a different animal.
It is appropriate to say $\sqrt{x^{2}} = |x|$ but only if we know nothing of x.

... how do we formally and rigorously demonstrate that $$\mid x_j \mid \le \left( \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } \mid x_j \mid^2 \right)^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } } $$

Maybe start with this?
(x + y)^2 = x^2 + 2xy + y^2 = x^2 + y^2 + Stuff

(x + y + z)^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + Stuff

Now, we need to show only that Stuff >= 0.

Just an idea. Let's see where you go with it.
 
tkhunny said:
$9^{1/2}\ne\pm 3\;rather\;9^{1/2} = 3$

You may be thinking about solutions to $x^2 = 9$. That's a different animal.
It is appropriate to say $\sqrt{x^{2}} = |x|$ but only if we know nothing of x.
Maybe start with this?
(x + y)^2 = x^2 + 2xy + y^2 = x^2 + y^2 + Stuff

(x + y + z)^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + Stuff

Now, we need to show only that Stuff >= 0.

Just an idea. Let's see where you go with it.
Hi tkhunny,

Thanks for the help ...

You're right of course ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
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 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K