Understanding Proposition 8.7: Operator Norm and Sequences

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Proposition 8.7 from Andrew Browder's "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction," specifically regarding the proof that establishes the inequality $$\| I - S \| \leq \frac{t}{1 - t}$$ for the limit of a sequence of operators $$S_p$$. The proof relies on the properties of Cauchy sequences in complete spaces, demonstrating that if $$\| I - S_p \| \leq \frac{t}{1 - t}$$ holds for all $$p$$, then it also holds for the limit $$S$$. The conclusion emphasizes that weak inequalities are preserved by limits, reinforcing the validity of the derived inequality for the limit operator.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Cauchy sequences in complete spaces
  • Familiarity with operator norms in functional analysis
  • Knowledge of limits and convergence in mathematical analysis
  • Basic principles of inequalities in sequences
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Cauchy sequences in complete metric spaces
  • Explore operator norms and their applications in functional analysis
  • Learn about weak and strong inequalities in the context of limits
  • Examine additional propositions in Browder's "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" for deeper insights
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying analysis, researchers in functional analysis, and educators seeking to clarify concepts related to operator norms and convergence.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew Browder's book: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" ... ...

I am currently reading Chapter 8: Differentiable Maps and am specifically focused on Section 8.1 Linear Algebra ...

I need some further help in fully understanding the proof of Proposition 8.7 ...Proposition 8.7 and its proof reads as follows:
View attachment 9397
View attachment 9398In the above proof by Browder we read the following:"... ... it follows from Proposition 8.6 that $$S_m \to S$$ for some $$S \in \mathscr{L} ( \mathbb{R}^n)$$. In particular, taking $$m = 0$$ above, we find $$\| I - S_p \| \leq \frac{t}{ 1 - t }$$for every $$p$$, and hence $$\| I - S \| \leq t/(1 - t )$$ ... ...

... ... ... "
My question is as follows:Can someone please explain exactly why/how that $$\| I - S_p \| \leq \frac{t}{ 1 - t }$$for every $$p$$ ... implies that $$\| I - S \| \leq t/(1 - t )$$ ... ... ?In other words if some relation is true for every term of a sequence ... why then is it true for the limit of a sequence ... ...

Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Browder - 1 - Proposition 8.7 ... PART 1 ....png
    Browder - 1 - Proposition 8.7 ... PART 1 ....png
    8.4 KB · Views: 152
  • Browder - 2 - Proposition 8.7 ... PART 2 ... ....png
    Browder - 2 - Proposition 8.7 ... PART 2 ... ....png
    7.9 KB · Views: 138
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Let $\varepsilon>0.$ Since $S_p$ is Cauchy in a complete space, it converges to $S$ in the space. That is, there exists $N>0$ such that for every $n>N,$ we have $\|S_n-S\|<\varepsilon.$ Now then, we have that
\begin{align*}
\|I-S\|&=\|I-S_p+S_p-S\|\\
&\le \|I-S_p\|+\|S_p-S\|\\
&\le \frac{t}{1-t}+\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Now we are nearly there.

The final step of the argument is something like this. Suppose we have a number $x\ge 0,$ and we let $\delta>0$ be arbitrary. What can we say about $x$ if $x<\delta$ for all $\delta?$ We can actually claim that $x=0.$ For, if $x>0,$ then suppose $\delta=x/2.$ Then $\delta>0,$ but $x=2\delta>\delta,$ contrary to the assumption.

Similarly, for the above argument, because $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we can conclude that $\|I-S\|\le t/(1-t).$
 
Ackbach said:
Let $\varepsilon>0.$ Since $S_p$ is Cauchy in a complete space, it converges to $S$ in the space. That is, there exists $N>0$ such that for every $n>N,$ we have $\|S_n-S\|<\varepsilon.$ Now then, we have that
\begin{align*}
\|I-S\|&=\|I-S_p+S_p-S\|\\
&\le \|I-S_p\|+\|S_p-S\|\\
&\le \frac{t}{1-t}+\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Now we are nearly there.

The final step of the argument is something like this. Suppose we have a number $x\ge 0,$ and we let $\delta>0$ be arbitrary. What can we say about $x$ if $x<\delta$ for all $\delta?$ We can actually claim that $x=0.$ For, if $x>0,$ then suppose $\delta=x/2.$ Then $\delta>0,$ but $x=2\delta>\delta,$ contrary to the assumption.

Similarly, for the above argument, because $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we can conclude that $\|I-S\|\le t/(1-t).$

Thanks Ackbach ...

Your post was most helpful ...

Peter
 
This is a particular case of the general rule that weak inequalities are preserved by limits (but strict inequalities may not be). If $(x_n)$ is a sequence with $$\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n = x$$, and $x_n\leqslant a$ for all $n$, then $x\leqslant a$. (But if $x_n<a$ for all $n$ then it need not be true that $x<a$. All you can assert is that $x\leqslant a$.)
 
Opalg said:
This is a particular case of the general rule that weak inequalities are preserved by limits (but strict inequalities may not be). If $(x_n)$ is a sequence with $$\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n = x$$, and $x_n\leqslant a$ for all $n$, then $x\leqslant a$. (But if $x_n<a$ for all $n$ then it need not be true that $x<a$. All you can assert is that $x\leqslant a$.)
Thanks for a most helpful post, Opalg ... Peter
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K