Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose $S(r)$ is set parametrised by $r \in [0,T]$. Let $\phi_t^s : H^1(S(t)) \to H^1(S(s))$ is a linear homeomorphism.

Suppose $\lVert \cdot \rVert_{H^1(S(t))}$ and $\lVert \phi_t^s(\cdot) \rVert_{H^1(S(s))}$ are equivalent norms on $H^1(S(t))$. So their dual norms are also equivalent.

The norm of $f \in H^{-1}(S(s))$ can be given as $$\sup_{w \in H^1(S(s))} \frac{\langle f, w \rangle_{H^{-1}(S(s)), H^1(S(s))}}{\lVert w\rVert_{H^1(S(s))}} = \sup_{v \in H^1(S(t))} \frac{\langle (\phi_t^s)^*f, v \rangle_{H^{-1}(S(t)), H^1(S(t))}}{\lVert \phi_t^sv\rVert_{H^1(S(s))}}$$ where the star denotes the adjoint.

I can derive this by just using the fact that \phi_t^s is a homeomorphism and the adjoint identity. Do I need any equivalence of dual norms at all?

Suppose that $$\lVert \phi_t^sv\rVert_{H^1(S(s))} \leq C\lVert v \rVert_{H^1(S(t))}$$

This, and the equivalence of $H^1$ norms implies $$\lVert (\phi_t^s)^*\rVert_{\mathcal{L}(H^{-1}(S(s)), H^{-1}(S(t))} \leq C$$

I still don't need any equivalence of norms to get this. Can somebody show me how to do it correctly?

share|improve this question
    
$\phi_t^s$ being a linear homeomorphism implies that $\|-\|$ and $\|\phi_t^s(-)\|$ are equivalent ... –  martini Oct 25 '12 at 16:44
add comment

1 Answer

We don't need the assumption that the norm are equivalent or that $\lVert\phi_t^s v\rVert_{H^1(S(s))}\leq C\lVert v\rVert_{H^1(S(t))}$, as it's already implied by the property of linearity and homeomorphism. Indeed, if $L\colon E\to F$ is linear and continuous, where $E$ and $F$ are normed spaces, then we can find $C>0$ such that $$\lVert Lx\rVert_F\leq C\lVert x\rVert,\quad x\in E.$$

To see the equality between the two suprema, we just need the fact that $\phi_t^s$ is a bijective correspondance.

share|improve this answer
    
You say linearity + homeomorphism implies norm equivalence. Is the converse true? Does norm equivalence (in the form given above) imply homeomorphism? –  soup Oct 29 '12 at 12:01
1  
If $C^{-1}\lVert x\rVert\leq \lVert Lx\rVert\leq C\lVert x\rVert$ and $L$ is linear, then $L$ is continuous and injective. But not necessarily bijective (take $E=\ell^2$ and $L$ the shift to the right). –  Davide Giraudo Oct 29 '12 at 12:05
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.