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

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequalities Space
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the inequality $$\mid x_j \mid \le \left( \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } \mid x_j \mid^2 \right)^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } }$$ as stated in Lemma 1.1.7 of "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk. Participants clarify that the expression $$\sqrt{x_j^2}$$ should be interpreted as $$|x_j|$$, emphasizing the importance of understanding the properties of square roots. The conversation also suggests starting with the expansion of squares to demonstrate that the remaining terms are non-negative, which is crucial for the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of normed spaces and their properties.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of continuity and differentiability in real analysis.
  • Knowledge of the triangle inequality and its implications in multidimensional contexts.
  • Basic proficiency in manipulating inequalities and square roots in mathematical proofs.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of normed spaces in detail, focusing on the definitions and examples.
  • Learn about the triangle inequality and its applications in proving inequalities in real analysis.
  • Explore the concept of continuity in the context of multidimensional functions.
  • Review the proof techniques used in real analysis, particularly those involving inequalities and limits.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, researchers in mathematical fields, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of normed spaces and inequalities.

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
 

Similar threads

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