Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I don't understand one step in the proof of the following lemma (Projektionssatz):

Let $X$ a Hilbert space with scalar product $(\cdot)_X$ and let $A\subset X$ be convex and closed. Then there is a unique map $P:X\rightarrow A$ that satisfies: $\|x-P(x)\| = \inf_{y\in A} \|x- y\|$. This is equivalent to the following statement:

(1) For all $a\in A$ and fixed $x\in X$, $\mbox{Re}\bigl( x-P(x), a-P(x) \bigr)_X \le 0$.

I don't understand the following step in the proof that (1) implies the properties of $P$:

Let $a\in A$. Then

$\|x-P(x)\|^2 + 2\mbox{Re}\bigl( x-P(x), P(x)-a \bigr)_X + \|P(x)-a\|^2 \ge \|x-P(x)\|^2$.

I don't understand the "$\ge$". How do we get rid of the term $\|P(x)-a\|$ on the left hand side?

Thank you very much!

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

It is non-negative! Hence, just drop it.

share|cite|improve this answer
And what about second terms in lhs? – Norbert Jul 9 '12 at 9:47
Oh my god - I'm sooo stupid. Sorry to bother you with such trivialities... Thanks! – Sh4pe Jul 9 '12 at 9:55
@Norbert: Non-negative by assumption. – Dirk Jul 9 '12 at 9:59
Well, I was inattentive – Norbert Jul 9 '12 at 11:10

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.