Using a different definition of norm

  • Thread starter Thread starter neutrino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Norm
neutrino
Messages
2,091
Reaction score
2
Here's a question from Apostol's Calculus Vol1

Suppose that instead of the usual definition of norm of a vector in V_n, we define it the following way,

||A|| = \sum_{k=1}^{n}|a_k|.

Using this definition in V_2 describe on a figure the set of all points (x,y) of norm 1.


Is it possible to do that? Doesn't every point (x,y) of the form (\frac{1}{s}, \frac{s-1}{s}), s \geq 1 satisfy the condition? (i.e., the number of points is not finite)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What has the number of points got to do with the ability to describe them? There are an uncountable number of points of normal norm one, and they are described as the unit circle.

If you just take the point (x,y) and consider the 4 cases of the signs of x and y you will see the answer quite easily (in particular, if x and y are both positive, it is the set { (t,1-t) : 0<=t <=1 }
 
Thank you. I knew I was forgetting something really simple. :redface:
 
By the way (this may be the next problem in Apostle!), the norm defined by ||A||= max(|x_k|) is also equivalent to the "usual" norm.

Where the set of all point p such that ||p||= 1, with the usual norm form a "ball" and the set of all points, ||p||= 1 ,with the norm you give, form a "diamond", the set of all points, ||p||= 1, with this norm, form a "cube".

The norms are equivalent since given any one, we can find a smaller of the other figures that will fit inside. For any neighborhood in one norm, there exist neighborhoods in the other norms that fit inside. Thus, open sets are identical in all 3 norms.

This is for finite dimensional space. Interestingly, for infinite dimensional spaces, such as function spaces, the 3 norms:
||f||=\sqrt{\int f(x)^2 dx}
(The "L2" norm)
||f||= \int |f(x)|dx
(The "L1" norm)
||f||= max |f(x)|
(The "L_\infty" norm)
do not give the same things. In fact, the sets of functions for which they exist are different.
 
HallsofIvy said:
By the way (this may be the next problem in Apostle!), the norm defined by ||A||= max(|x_k|) is also equivalent to the "usual" norm.

Indeed it is. :)

Where the set of all point p such that ||p||= 1, with the usual norm form a "ball" and the set of all points, ||p||= 1 ,with the norm you give, form a "diamond", the set of all points, ||p||= 1, with this norm, form a "cube".

The norms are equivalent since given any one, we can find a smaller of the other figures that will fit inside. For any neighborhood in one norm, there exist neighborhoods in the other norms that fit inside. Thus, open sets are identical in all 3 norms.

That is very interesting! Although it may not be very difficult to do it in V_3, I usually stick to V_2 for visualising these concepts.
Interestingly, for infinite dimensional spaces, such as function spaces, the 3 norms:
||f||=\sqrt{\int f(x)^2 dx}
(The "L2" norm)
||f||= \int |f(x)|dx
(The "L1" norm)
||f||= max |f(x)|
(The "L_\infty" norm)
do not give the same things. In fact, the sets of functions for which they exist are different.
Now, that is somewhat beyond what I can understand. I'm self-studying linear algebra (just begun, in fact), in a non-math-methods way limited to computing determinants and solving linear equations. But I'm sure I'll be able to appreciate this in the future. Thanks.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top