All norms defined on a finite dimensional normed linear space are equivalent












3












$begingroup$


Given that $E$ is a finite dimensional normed linear space. Let $dim E=ngeq 1$ and ${e_i}^{n}_{i=1}$ be a basis for $E.$ Then, there exists unique scalars ${alpha_i}^{n}_{i=1}$ such that
begin{align}x=sum_{i=1}^{n}alpha_i e_i.end{align}
PROOF



I proved here Prove that $| cdot |_0$ defined by $| x |_0=maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|$ is a norm on $E$. that $| cdot |_0$ defined by $| x |_0=maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|$ is a norm on $E$. So, the next thing to do, is to prove that any norm $| cdot |$ defined on $E,$ is equivalent to $| cdot |_0$.



So, for any $xin E,$
begin{align}|x|=|sum_{i=1}^{n}alpha_i e_i|leq maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|big|sum_{i=1}^{n}e_ibig| leq maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|sum_{i=1}^{n}big|e_ibig|=beta| x |_0,end{align}
where $beta:=sum_{i=1}^{n}big|e_ibig|.$ Now, define $S={xin E: | x |_0=1}.$ Clearly, $S$ is compact. Let
begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}



Let $epsilon>0$ and $ x,yin E$ be arbitrary such that $BigVert x-yBigVert_0<delta,$ then
begin{align}left|psileft(x right)-psileft(y right)right|&=left|Vert xVert-BigVert y BigVertright| \&leq BigVert x-yBigVert \&leq beta,BigVert x-yBigVert_0 \&<beta delta. end{align}
So, given any $epsilon>0$, choose $delta=dfrac{epsilon}{beta+1}>0,$ then
begin{align}left|psileft(x right)-psileft(y right)right|&<beta delta=betaleft(frac{epsilon}{beta+1}right)<epsilon. end{align}
Thus, $psi$ is uniformly continuous on $E$ and is automatically continuous on $E$. Since $Ssubseteq E$, then $psi$ is continuous on $S$, and the minimum is attained in the set, i.e. there exists $t_0in S$ such that $psi(t_0)=minlimits_{tin S} psi(t)$ and begin{align}0<psi(t_0)leq psi(t)=|t|,;;tin S.end{align}
Let $u=frac{x}{| x|_0}$, then $uin S$ and begin{align}gammaleq psi(u)=Big|frac{x}{| x|_0}Big|implies gamma | x|_0leq | x|,;;gamma:=psi(t_0).end{align}
Finally, we have begin{align}gammaleq psi(t)=Big|frac{x}{| x|_0}Big|implies gamma | x|_0leq | x|leq beta| x |_0, ;;text{for some} ;;gamma,beta>0.end{align}
Therefore, any norm $| cdot |$ defined on $E,$ is equivalent to $| cdot |_0$ and we are done!



Kindly help check if the proof is correct.



QUESTION:



What gives the assurance that $psi(t_0)>0?$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You say, "Clearly $S$ is compact." Compact with respect to which topology? You have two norms whose topologies you may not assume coincide. Also, I'm not certain compactness is that self-evident!
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:48










  • $begingroup$
    @Theo Bendit: I made such a claim since it is closed and bounded.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:49


















3












$begingroup$


Given that $E$ is a finite dimensional normed linear space. Let $dim E=ngeq 1$ and ${e_i}^{n}_{i=1}$ be a basis for $E.$ Then, there exists unique scalars ${alpha_i}^{n}_{i=1}$ such that
begin{align}x=sum_{i=1}^{n}alpha_i e_i.end{align}
PROOF



I proved here Prove that $| cdot |_0$ defined by $| x |_0=maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|$ is a norm on $E$. that $| cdot |_0$ defined by $| x |_0=maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|$ is a norm on $E$. So, the next thing to do, is to prove that any norm $| cdot |$ defined on $E,$ is equivalent to $| cdot |_0$.



So, for any $xin E,$
begin{align}|x|=|sum_{i=1}^{n}alpha_i e_i|leq maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|big|sum_{i=1}^{n}e_ibig| leq maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|sum_{i=1}^{n}big|e_ibig|=beta| x |_0,end{align}
where $beta:=sum_{i=1}^{n}big|e_ibig|.$ Now, define $S={xin E: | x |_0=1}.$ Clearly, $S$ is compact. Let
begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}



Let $epsilon>0$ and $ x,yin E$ be arbitrary such that $BigVert x-yBigVert_0<delta,$ then
begin{align}left|psileft(x right)-psileft(y right)right|&=left|Vert xVert-BigVert y BigVertright| \&leq BigVert x-yBigVert \&leq beta,BigVert x-yBigVert_0 \&<beta delta. end{align}
So, given any $epsilon>0$, choose $delta=dfrac{epsilon}{beta+1}>0,$ then
begin{align}left|psileft(x right)-psileft(y right)right|&<beta delta=betaleft(frac{epsilon}{beta+1}right)<epsilon. end{align}
Thus, $psi$ is uniformly continuous on $E$ and is automatically continuous on $E$. Since $Ssubseteq E$, then $psi$ is continuous on $S$, and the minimum is attained in the set, i.e. there exists $t_0in S$ such that $psi(t_0)=minlimits_{tin S} psi(t)$ and begin{align}0<psi(t_0)leq psi(t)=|t|,;;tin S.end{align}
Let $u=frac{x}{| x|_0}$, then $uin S$ and begin{align}gammaleq psi(u)=Big|frac{x}{| x|_0}Big|implies gamma | x|_0leq | x|,;;gamma:=psi(t_0).end{align}
Finally, we have begin{align}gammaleq psi(t)=Big|frac{x}{| x|_0}Big|implies gamma | x|_0leq | x|leq beta| x |_0, ;;text{for some} ;;gamma,beta>0.end{align}
Therefore, any norm $| cdot |$ defined on $E,$ is equivalent to $| cdot |_0$ and we are done!



Kindly help check if the proof is correct.



QUESTION:



What gives the assurance that $psi(t_0)>0?$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You say, "Clearly $S$ is compact." Compact with respect to which topology? You have two norms whose topologies you may not assume coincide. Also, I'm not certain compactness is that self-evident!
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:48










  • $begingroup$
    @Theo Bendit: I made such a claim since it is closed and bounded.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:49
















3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


Given that $E$ is a finite dimensional normed linear space. Let $dim E=ngeq 1$ and ${e_i}^{n}_{i=1}$ be a basis for $E.$ Then, there exists unique scalars ${alpha_i}^{n}_{i=1}$ such that
begin{align}x=sum_{i=1}^{n}alpha_i e_i.end{align}
PROOF



I proved here Prove that $| cdot |_0$ defined by $| x |_0=maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|$ is a norm on $E$. that $| cdot |_0$ defined by $| x |_0=maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|$ is a norm on $E$. So, the next thing to do, is to prove that any norm $| cdot |$ defined on $E,$ is equivalent to $| cdot |_0$.



So, for any $xin E,$
begin{align}|x|=|sum_{i=1}^{n}alpha_i e_i|leq maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|big|sum_{i=1}^{n}e_ibig| leq maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|sum_{i=1}^{n}big|e_ibig|=beta| x |_0,end{align}
where $beta:=sum_{i=1}^{n}big|e_ibig|.$ Now, define $S={xin E: | x |_0=1}.$ Clearly, $S$ is compact. Let
begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}



Let $epsilon>0$ and $ x,yin E$ be arbitrary such that $BigVert x-yBigVert_0<delta,$ then
begin{align}left|psileft(x right)-psileft(y right)right|&=left|Vert xVert-BigVert y BigVertright| \&leq BigVert x-yBigVert \&leq beta,BigVert x-yBigVert_0 \&<beta delta. end{align}
So, given any $epsilon>0$, choose $delta=dfrac{epsilon}{beta+1}>0,$ then
begin{align}left|psileft(x right)-psileft(y right)right|&<beta delta=betaleft(frac{epsilon}{beta+1}right)<epsilon. end{align}
Thus, $psi$ is uniformly continuous on $E$ and is automatically continuous on $E$. Since $Ssubseteq E$, then $psi$ is continuous on $S$, and the minimum is attained in the set, i.e. there exists $t_0in S$ such that $psi(t_0)=minlimits_{tin S} psi(t)$ and begin{align}0<psi(t_0)leq psi(t)=|t|,;;tin S.end{align}
Let $u=frac{x}{| x|_0}$, then $uin S$ and begin{align}gammaleq psi(u)=Big|frac{x}{| x|_0}Big|implies gamma | x|_0leq | x|,;;gamma:=psi(t_0).end{align}
Finally, we have begin{align}gammaleq psi(t)=Big|frac{x}{| x|_0}Big|implies gamma | x|_0leq | x|leq beta| x |_0, ;;text{for some} ;;gamma,beta>0.end{align}
Therefore, any norm $| cdot |$ defined on $E,$ is equivalent to $| cdot |_0$ and we are done!



Kindly help check if the proof is correct.



QUESTION:



What gives the assurance that $psi(t_0)>0?$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Given that $E$ is a finite dimensional normed linear space. Let $dim E=ngeq 1$ and ${e_i}^{n}_{i=1}$ be a basis for $E.$ Then, there exists unique scalars ${alpha_i}^{n}_{i=1}$ such that
begin{align}x=sum_{i=1}^{n}alpha_i e_i.end{align}
PROOF



I proved here Prove that $| cdot |_0$ defined by $| x |_0=maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|$ is a norm on $E$. that $| cdot |_0$ defined by $| x |_0=maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|$ is a norm on $E$. So, the next thing to do, is to prove that any norm $| cdot |$ defined on $E,$ is equivalent to $| cdot |_0$.



So, for any $xin E,$
begin{align}|x|=|sum_{i=1}^{n}alpha_i e_i|leq maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|big|sum_{i=1}^{n}e_ibig| leq maxlimits_{1leq ileq n}|alpha_i|sum_{i=1}^{n}big|e_ibig|=beta| x |_0,end{align}
where $beta:=sum_{i=1}^{n}big|e_ibig|.$ Now, define $S={xin E: | x |_0=1}.$ Clearly, $S$ is compact. Let
begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}



Let $epsilon>0$ and $ x,yin E$ be arbitrary such that $BigVert x-yBigVert_0<delta,$ then
begin{align}left|psileft(x right)-psileft(y right)right|&=left|Vert xVert-BigVert y BigVertright| \&leq BigVert x-yBigVert \&leq beta,BigVert x-yBigVert_0 \&<beta delta. end{align}
So, given any $epsilon>0$, choose $delta=dfrac{epsilon}{beta+1}>0,$ then
begin{align}left|psileft(x right)-psileft(y right)right|&<beta delta=betaleft(frac{epsilon}{beta+1}right)<epsilon. end{align}
Thus, $psi$ is uniformly continuous on $E$ and is automatically continuous on $E$. Since $Ssubseteq E$, then $psi$ is continuous on $S$, and the minimum is attained in the set, i.e. there exists $t_0in S$ such that $psi(t_0)=minlimits_{tin S} psi(t)$ and begin{align}0<psi(t_0)leq psi(t)=|t|,;;tin S.end{align}
Let $u=frac{x}{| x|_0}$, then $uin S$ and begin{align}gammaleq psi(u)=Big|frac{x}{| x|_0}Big|implies gamma | x|_0leq | x|,;;gamma:=psi(t_0).end{align}
Finally, we have begin{align}gammaleq psi(t)=Big|frac{x}{| x|_0}Big|implies gamma | x|_0leq | x|leq beta| x |_0, ;;text{for some} ;;gamma,beta>0.end{align}
Therefore, any norm $| cdot |$ defined on $E,$ is equivalent to $| cdot |_0$ and we are done!



Kindly help check if the proof is correct.



QUESTION:



What gives the assurance that $psi(t_0)>0?$







linear-algebra functional-analysis proof-verification normed-spaces






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:45







Omojola Micheal

















asked Dec 26 '18 at 21:15









Omojola MichealOmojola Micheal

2,068424




2,068424








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You say, "Clearly $S$ is compact." Compact with respect to which topology? You have two norms whose topologies you may not assume coincide. Also, I'm not certain compactness is that self-evident!
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:48










  • $begingroup$
    @Theo Bendit: I made such a claim since it is closed and bounded.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:49
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You say, "Clearly $S$ is compact." Compact with respect to which topology? You have two norms whose topologies you may not assume coincide. Also, I'm not certain compactness is that self-evident!
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:48










  • $begingroup$
    @Theo Bendit: I made such a claim since it is closed and bounded.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:49










1




1




$begingroup$
You say, "Clearly $S$ is compact." Compact with respect to which topology? You have two norms whose topologies you may not assume coincide. Also, I'm not certain compactness is that self-evident!
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 26 '18 at 21:48




$begingroup$
You say, "Clearly $S$ is compact." Compact with respect to which topology? You have two norms whose topologies you may not assume coincide. Also, I'm not certain compactness is that self-evident!
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 26 '18 at 21:48












$begingroup$
@Theo Bendit: I made such a claim since it is closed and bounded.
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:49






$begingroup$
@Theo Bendit: I made such a claim since it is closed and bounded.
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:49












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

The key of the argument is the fact that $S$ is compact, and you are glossing over that. It's not very hard, but it is not the right part of the proof to say "clearly": it's precisely the part of the proof where you have to use that $E$ is finite-dimensional.



Once you know that $S$ is compact, you are done. You have already proven that $psi$ is uniformly continuous, as your argument started with $psi(x)leqbeta|x|_0$. And you don't even need uniform continuity, which is automatic for a continuous function on a compact set. Once you know that $S$ is compact and $psi$ is continuous, it is standard that it attains a max and a min on $S$, and you are done.



Finally, your (unneeded) argument to show that $psi$ is uniformly continuous starts by saying that $x/|x-y|_0in S$, which is not the case. And the argument cannot be right because it doesn't use that $S$ is compact, so it doesn't use that $E$ is finite-dimensional; nor it uses what $|cdot|_0$ is (which you did use in your original proof of $psi(x)leqbeta|x|$): it is a "proof" that any two norms on a vector space are comparable, something that is not true.



Finally, you have $psi(t_0)>0$ because $psi$ is a norm; since $t_0in S$, you have $|t_0|_0=1$, so $t_0ne0$ and then $psi(t_0)>0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    +1) Thank you for your critical examination of the proof. Can you please, tell me where the proof is faulty? Or can you provide one?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:21












  • $begingroup$
    The argument is faulty because you cannot say that $x/|x-y|_0in S$; these elements can be unbounded in general and your argument does not apply. And I don't need to provide a proof, because you already did.You need to erase from "We claim" all the way until "Thus", as none of that is needed. As I mentioned, $psi$ is continuous by your first estimate, and that together with the compactness of $S$ gives you the minimum you need.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:29










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks and let me do that right away!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:34










  • $begingroup$
    Can you please, check now?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:45










  • $begingroup$
    Looks ok now. I also added the explanation why $psi(t_0)>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:50



















2












$begingroup$

Since the minimum is attained in the set $S$, it's pretty straightforward. Recall that $S$ is defined as :



$$S = {x in E : |x|_0 = 1}$$



You defined $psi(t)$ as :



$$begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}$$



But, note that for any norm, it is :



$$|x| = 0 Leftrightarrow x = 0$$



The importance of $Leftrightarrow$ as an if and only if operator is noted here.



Specifically, it is : $psi(t_0) = |t_0|$ with $t_0 in S$. But $|t_0|_0 = 1 > 0 Leftrightarrow t_0 > 0 Leftrightarrow |t_0| equiv psi(t_0) >0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for that clarification! Kindly check the proof if correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:41










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Seems okay.
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I am grateful!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:45










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Always happy to help. Merry Christmas !
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46










  • $begingroup$
    Same, same here! Goodbye!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:47



















1












$begingroup$

We know that if and only if $||x||=0$ then $x=0$. And we know the same for $||x||_0$.
Since $||t_0||_0=1$ we get that $||t_0||neq 0$. And since $||x||geq0$ we get positivity of $||t_0||=psi(t_0)$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I really appreciate you!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053327%2fall-norms-defined-on-a-finite-dimensional-normed-linear-space-are-equivalent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

The key of the argument is the fact that $S$ is compact, and you are glossing over that. It's not very hard, but it is not the right part of the proof to say "clearly": it's precisely the part of the proof where you have to use that $E$ is finite-dimensional.



Once you know that $S$ is compact, you are done. You have already proven that $psi$ is uniformly continuous, as your argument started with $psi(x)leqbeta|x|_0$. And you don't even need uniform continuity, which is automatic for a continuous function on a compact set. Once you know that $S$ is compact and $psi$ is continuous, it is standard that it attains a max and a min on $S$, and you are done.



Finally, your (unneeded) argument to show that $psi$ is uniformly continuous starts by saying that $x/|x-y|_0in S$, which is not the case. And the argument cannot be right because it doesn't use that $S$ is compact, so it doesn't use that $E$ is finite-dimensional; nor it uses what $|cdot|_0$ is (which you did use in your original proof of $psi(x)leqbeta|x|$): it is a "proof" that any two norms on a vector space are comparable, something that is not true.



Finally, you have $psi(t_0)>0$ because $psi$ is a norm; since $t_0in S$, you have $|t_0|_0=1$, so $t_0ne0$ and then $psi(t_0)>0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    +1) Thank you for your critical examination of the proof. Can you please, tell me where the proof is faulty? Or can you provide one?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:21












  • $begingroup$
    The argument is faulty because you cannot say that $x/|x-y|_0in S$; these elements can be unbounded in general and your argument does not apply. And I don't need to provide a proof, because you already did.You need to erase from "We claim" all the way until "Thus", as none of that is needed. As I mentioned, $psi$ is continuous by your first estimate, and that together with the compactness of $S$ gives you the minimum you need.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:29










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks and let me do that right away!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:34










  • $begingroup$
    Can you please, check now?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:45










  • $begingroup$
    Looks ok now. I also added the explanation why $psi(t_0)>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:50
















2












$begingroup$

The key of the argument is the fact that $S$ is compact, and you are glossing over that. It's not very hard, but it is not the right part of the proof to say "clearly": it's precisely the part of the proof where you have to use that $E$ is finite-dimensional.



Once you know that $S$ is compact, you are done. You have already proven that $psi$ is uniformly continuous, as your argument started with $psi(x)leqbeta|x|_0$. And you don't even need uniform continuity, which is automatic for a continuous function on a compact set. Once you know that $S$ is compact and $psi$ is continuous, it is standard that it attains a max and a min on $S$, and you are done.



Finally, your (unneeded) argument to show that $psi$ is uniformly continuous starts by saying that $x/|x-y|_0in S$, which is not the case. And the argument cannot be right because it doesn't use that $S$ is compact, so it doesn't use that $E$ is finite-dimensional; nor it uses what $|cdot|_0$ is (which you did use in your original proof of $psi(x)leqbeta|x|$): it is a "proof" that any two norms on a vector space are comparable, something that is not true.



Finally, you have $psi(t_0)>0$ because $psi$ is a norm; since $t_0in S$, you have $|t_0|_0=1$, so $t_0ne0$ and then $psi(t_0)>0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    +1) Thank you for your critical examination of the proof. Can you please, tell me where the proof is faulty? Or can you provide one?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:21












  • $begingroup$
    The argument is faulty because you cannot say that $x/|x-y|_0in S$; these elements can be unbounded in general and your argument does not apply. And I don't need to provide a proof, because you already did.You need to erase from "We claim" all the way until "Thus", as none of that is needed. As I mentioned, $psi$ is continuous by your first estimate, and that together with the compactness of $S$ gives you the minimum you need.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:29










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks and let me do that right away!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:34










  • $begingroup$
    Can you please, check now?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:45










  • $begingroup$
    Looks ok now. I also added the explanation why $psi(t_0)>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:50














2












2








2





$begingroup$

The key of the argument is the fact that $S$ is compact, and you are glossing over that. It's not very hard, but it is not the right part of the proof to say "clearly": it's precisely the part of the proof where you have to use that $E$ is finite-dimensional.



Once you know that $S$ is compact, you are done. You have already proven that $psi$ is uniformly continuous, as your argument started with $psi(x)leqbeta|x|_0$. And you don't even need uniform continuity, which is automatic for a continuous function on a compact set. Once you know that $S$ is compact and $psi$ is continuous, it is standard that it attains a max and a min on $S$, and you are done.



Finally, your (unneeded) argument to show that $psi$ is uniformly continuous starts by saying that $x/|x-y|_0in S$, which is not the case. And the argument cannot be right because it doesn't use that $S$ is compact, so it doesn't use that $E$ is finite-dimensional; nor it uses what $|cdot|_0$ is (which you did use in your original proof of $psi(x)leqbeta|x|$): it is a "proof" that any two norms on a vector space are comparable, something that is not true.



Finally, you have $psi(t_0)>0$ because $psi$ is a norm; since $t_0in S$, you have $|t_0|_0=1$, so $t_0ne0$ and then $psi(t_0)>0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The key of the argument is the fact that $S$ is compact, and you are glossing over that. It's not very hard, but it is not the right part of the proof to say "clearly": it's precisely the part of the proof where you have to use that $E$ is finite-dimensional.



Once you know that $S$ is compact, you are done. You have already proven that $psi$ is uniformly continuous, as your argument started with $psi(x)leqbeta|x|_0$. And you don't even need uniform continuity, which is automatic for a continuous function on a compact set. Once you know that $S$ is compact and $psi$ is continuous, it is standard that it attains a max and a min on $S$, and you are done.



Finally, your (unneeded) argument to show that $psi$ is uniformly continuous starts by saying that $x/|x-y|_0in S$, which is not the case. And the argument cannot be right because it doesn't use that $S$ is compact, so it doesn't use that $E$ is finite-dimensional; nor it uses what $|cdot|_0$ is (which you did use in your original proof of $psi(x)leqbeta|x|$): it is a "proof" that any two norms on a vector space are comparable, something that is not true.



Finally, you have $psi(t_0)>0$ because $psi$ is a norm; since $t_0in S$, you have $|t_0|_0=1$, so $t_0ne0$ and then $psi(t_0)>0$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 27 '18 at 17:49

























answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:13









Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami

129k1184185




129k1184185












  • $begingroup$
    +1) Thank you for your critical examination of the proof. Can you please, tell me where the proof is faulty? Or can you provide one?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:21












  • $begingroup$
    The argument is faulty because you cannot say that $x/|x-y|_0in S$; these elements can be unbounded in general and your argument does not apply. And I don't need to provide a proof, because you already did.You need to erase from "We claim" all the way until "Thus", as none of that is needed. As I mentioned, $psi$ is continuous by your first estimate, and that together with the compactness of $S$ gives you the minimum you need.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:29










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks and let me do that right away!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:34










  • $begingroup$
    Can you please, check now?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:45










  • $begingroup$
    Looks ok now. I also added the explanation why $psi(t_0)>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:50


















  • $begingroup$
    +1) Thank you for your critical examination of the proof. Can you please, tell me where the proof is faulty? Or can you provide one?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:21












  • $begingroup$
    The argument is faulty because you cannot say that $x/|x-y|_0in S$; these elements can be unbounded in general and your argument does not apply. And I don't need to provide a proof, because you already did.You need to erase from "We claim" all the way until "Thus", as none of that is needed. As I mentioned, $psi$ is continuous by your first estimate, and that together with the compactness of $S$ gives you the minimum you need.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:29










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks and let me do that right away!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:34










  • $begingroup$
    Can you please, check now?
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 27 '18 at 16:45










  • $begingroup$
    Looks ok now. I also added the explanation why $psi(t_0)>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:50
















$begingroup$
+1) Thank you for your critical examination of the proof. Can you please, tell me where the proof is faulty? Or can you provide one?
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:21






$begingroup$
+1) Thank you for your critical examination of the proof. Can you please, tell me where the proof is faulty? Or can you provide one?
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:21














$begingroup$
The argument is faulty because you cannot say that $x/|x-y|_0in S$; these elements can be unbounded in general and your argument does not apply. And I don't need to provide a proof, because you already did.You need to erase from "We claim" all the way until "Thus", as none of that is needed. As I mentioned, $psi$ is continuous by your first estimate, and that together with the compactness of $S$ gives you the minimum you need.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Dec 27 '18 at 16:29




$begingroup$
The argument is faulty because you cannot say that $x/|x-y|_0in S$; these elements can be unbounded in general and your argument does not apply. And I don't need to provide a proof, because you already did.You need to erase from "We claim" all the way until "Thus", as none of that is needed. As I mentioned, $psi$ is continuous by your first estimate, and that together with the compactness of $S$ gives you the minimum you need.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Dec 27 '18 at 16:29












$begingroup$
Thanks and let me do that right away!
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:34




$begingroup$
Thanks and let me do that right away!
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:34












$begingroup$
Can you please, check now?
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:45




$begingroup$
Can you please, check now?
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:45












$begingroup$
Looks ok now. I also added the explanation why $psi(t_0)>0$.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Dec 27 '18 at 17:50




$begingroup$
Looks ok now. I also added the explanation why $psi(t_0)>0$.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Dec 27 '18 at 17:50











2












$begingroup$

Since the minimum is attained in the set $S$, it's pretty straightforward. Recall that $S$ is defined as :



$$S = {x in E : |x|_0 = 1}$$



You defined $psi(t)$ as :



$$begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}$$



But, note that for any norm, it is :



$$|x| = 0 Leftrightarrow x = 0$$



The importance of $Leftrightarrow$ as an if and only if operator is noted here.



Specifically, it is : $psi(t_0) = |t_0|$ with $t_0 in S$. But $|t_0|_0 = 1 > 0 Leftrightarrow t_0 > 0 Leftrightarrow |t_0| equiv psi(t_0) >0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for that clarification! Kindly check the proof if correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:41










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Seems okay.
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I am grateful!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:45










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Always happy to help. Merry Christmas !
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46










  • $begingroup$
    Same, same here! Goodbye!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:47
















2












$begingroup$

Since the minimum is attained in the set $S$, it's pretty straightforward. Recall that $S$ is defined as :



$$S = {x in E : |x|_0 = 1}$$



You defined $psi(t)$ as :



$$begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}$$



But, note that for any norm, it is :



$$|x| = 0 Leftrightarrow x = 0$$



The importance of $Leftrightarrow$ as an if and only if operator is noted here.



Specifically, it is : $psi(t_0) = |t_0|$ with $t_0 in S$. But $|t_0|_0 = 1 > 0 Leftrightarrow t_0 > 0 Leftrightarrow |t_0| equiv psi(t_0) >0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for that clarification! Kindly check the proof if correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:41










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Seems okay.
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I am grateful!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:45










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Always happy to help. Merry Christmas !
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46










  • $begingroup$
    Same, same here! Goodbye!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:47














2












2








2





$begingroup$

Since the minimum is attained in the set $S$, it's pretty straightforward. Recall that $S$ is defined as :



$$S = {x in E : |x|_0 = 1}$$



You defined $psi(t)$ as :



$$begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}$$



But, note that for any norm, it is :



$$|x| = 0 Leftrightarrow x = 0$$



The importance of $Leftrightarrow$ as an if and only if operator is noted here.



Specifically, it is : $psi(t_0) = |t_0|$ with $t_0 in S$. But $|t_0|_0 = 1 > 0 Leftrightarrow t_0 > 0 Leftrightarrow |t_0| equiv psi(t_0) >0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Since the minimum is attained in the set $S$, it's pretty straightforward. Recall that $S$ is defined as :



$$S = {x in E : |x|_0 = 1}$$



You defined $psi(t)$ as :



$$begin{align}psi:(E&,| cdot |_0)longrightarrow Bbb{R},\& xmapsto psi(x)=|x|end{align}$$



But, note that for any norm, it is :



$$|x| = 0 Leftrightarrow x = 0$$



The importance of $Leftrightarrow$ as an if and only if operator is noted here.



Specifically, it is : $psi(t_0) = |t_0|$ with $t_0 in S$. But $|t_0|_0 = 1 > 0 Leftrightarrow t_0 > 0 Leftrightarrow |t_0| equiv psi(t_0) >0$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 26 '18 at 21:39









RebellosRebellos

15.7k31250




15.7k31250












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for that clarification! Kindly check the proof if correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:41










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Seems okay.
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I am grateful!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:45










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Always happy to help. Merry Christmas !
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46










  • $begingroup$
    Same, same here! Goodbye!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:47


















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for that clarification! Kindly check the proof if correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:41










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Seems okay.
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I am grateful!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:45










  • $begingroup$
    @Mike Always happy to help. Merry Christmas !
    $endgroup$
    – Rebellos
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46










  • $begingroup$
    Same, same here! Goodbye!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:47
















$begingroup$
Thanks for that clarification! Kindly check the proof if correct.
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:41




$begingroup$
Thanks for that clarification! Kindly check the proof if correct.
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:41












$begingroup$
@Mike Seems okay.
$endgroup$
– Rebellos
Dec 26 '18 at 21:44




$begingroup$
@Mike Seems okay.
$endgroup$
– Rebellos
Dec 26 '18 at 21:44












$begingroup$
Thanks a lot! I am grateful!
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:45




$begingroup$
Thanks a lot! I am grateful!
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:45












$begingroup$
@Mike Always happy to help. Merry Christmas !
$endgroup$
– Rebellos
Dec 26 '18 at 21:46




$begingroup$
@Mike Always happy to help. Merry Christmas !
$endgroup$
– Rebellos
Dec 26 '18 at 21:46












$begingroup$
Same, same here! Goodbye!
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:47




$begingroup$
Same, same here! Goodbye!
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:47











1












$begingroup$

We know that if and only if $||x||=0$ then $x=0$. And we know the same for $||x||_0$.
Since $||t_0||_0=1$ we get that $||t_0||neq 0$. And since $||x||geq0$ we get positivity of $||t_0||=psi(t_0)$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I really appreciate you!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46
















1












$begingroup$

We know that if and only if $||x||=0$ then $x=0$. And we know the same for $||x||_0$.
Since $||t_0||_0=1$ we get that $||t_0||neq 0$. And since $||x||geq0$ we get positivity of $||t_0||=psi(t_0)$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I really appreciate you!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46














1












1








1





$begingroup$

We know that if and only if $||x||=0$ then $x=0$. And we know the same for $||x||_0$.
Since $||t_0||_0=1$ we get that $||t_0||neq 0$. And since $||x||geq0$ we get positivity of $||t_0||=psi(t_0)$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



We know that if and only if $||x||=0$ then $x=0$. And we know the same for $||x||_0$.
Since $||t_0||_0=1$ we get that $||t_0||neq 0$. And since $||x||geq0$ we get positivity of $||t_0||=psi(t_0)$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 26 '18 at 21:41

























answered Dec 26 '18 at 21:24









TimmathstfTimmathstf

307




307












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I really appreciate you!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46


















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot! I really appreciate you!
    $endgroup$
    – Omojola Micheal
    Dec 26 '18 at 21:46
















$begingroup$
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate you!
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:46




$begingroup$
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate you!
$endgroup$
– Omojola Micheal
Dec 26 '18 at 21:46


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053327%2fall-norms-defined-on-a-finite-dimensional-normed-linear-space-are-equivalent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten