Show that a vector space is not complete (therefore not a Hilbert spac

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
272

Homework Statement


Consider the space of continuous functions in [0,1] (that is C([0,1]) over the complex numbers with the following scalar product: ##\langle f , g \rangle = \int _0 ^1 \overline{f(x)}g(x)dx##.
Show that this space is not complete and therefore is not a Hilbert space.
Hint:Find a Cauchy sequence (with respect to the norm ##||f||=\sqrt {\langle f,f \rangle }## of functions in C([0,1])) such that the sequence converges to a non continuous function.

Homework Equations


Hmm.

The Attempt at a Solution



So I have in mind a sequence that reprent a truncated Fourier series that would represent a square wave if the series is never truncated. A kind of Heaviside function.
Or a sequence of Gaussians that would reprent the Dirac delta (but it's not a function).
In that case ##f_n=Ce^{-ax^2n^2}## would make it? I'm somehow confused when n tends to infinity to what happens at x=0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fluidistic said:

Homework Statement


Consider the space of continuous functions in [0,1] (that is C([0,1]) over the complex numbers with the following scalar product: ##\langle f , g \rangle = \int _0 ^1 \overline{f(x)}g(x)dx##.
Show that this space is not complete and therefore is not a Hilbert space.
Hint:Find a Cauchy sequence (with respect to the norm ##||f||=\sqrt {\langle f,f \rangle }## of functions in C([0,1])) such that the sequence converges to a non continuous function.


Homework Equations


Hmm.


The Attempt at a Solution



So I have in mind a sequence that reprent a truncated Fourier series that would represent a square wave if the series is never truncated. A kind of Heaviside function.
Or a sequence of Gaussians that would reprent the Dirac delta (but it's not a function).
In that case ##f_n=Ce^{-ax^2n^2}## would make it? I'm somehow confused when n tends to infinity to what happens at x=0.

Try something much simpler, like ##f_n=x^n##. What does that do?
 
Dick said:
Try something much simpler, like ##f_n=x^n##. What does that do?

Hmm since x is between 0 and 1, the sequence would converge to 0.
Edit: Ah yeah at x=1 it's worth 1, a discontinuous function. Wow.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top