Real Analysis proof (inner product)

malcmitch20
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I am having trouble showing that the operation defined by f*g(f of g)= Integral[from a to b]f(x)g(x) is an inner product.

I know it must fulfill the inner product properties, which are:
x*x>=0 for all x in V
x*x=0 iff x=0
x*y=y*x for all x,y in V
x(y+z)=x*z+y*z
(ax)y=a(xy)=x(ay)

I started the first one w/ Integral[a,b] f(x)*f(x) but I am not sure how to even integrate a function that is not defnied! Any help with this will get me going and I think I'll be able to complete the rest. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't need to calculate the integral, you just need to show it's non-negative.
 
malcmitch20 said:
Hello all,

I am having trouble showing that the operation defined by f*g(f of g)= Integral[from a to b]f(x)g(x) is an inner product.

I know it must fulfill the inner product properties, which are:
x*x>=0 for all x in V
x*x=0 iff x=0
x*y=y*x for all x,y in V
x(y+z)=x*z+y*z
(ax)y=a(xy)=x(ay)

I started the first one w/ Integral[a,b] f(x)*f(x) but I am not sure how to even integrate a function that is not defnied! Any help with this will get me going and I think I'll be able to complete the rest. Any ideas?

None of these are hard. For instance x*x>=0 because x^2>=0. The thing you need to ask yourself is whether X^2 is integrable i.e. whether its integral is finite if x is integrable. In general this is not true and you must restrict the space of functions to those for which it is.

But how do you know that x.y is integrable just because x and y are?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top