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

Let $\{(X_\nu,\mu_\nu):\nu\in\Lambda\}$ be a family of measurable spaces. Is it true that $\bigoplus_2\{L_2(X_\nu,\mu_\nu):\nu\in\Lambda\}$ isometrically isomorphic to $L_2\left(\bigsqcup\{(X_\nu,\mu_\nu):\nu\in\Lambda\}\right)$. It seems to me that desired isometric isomorphism is $$ i:\bigoplus_2\{L_2(X_\nu,\mu_\nu):\nu\in\Lambda\}\to L_2\left(\bigsqcup\{(X_\nu,\mu_\nu):\nu\in\Lambda\}\right):f\mapsto(x_\nu\mapsto f(\nu)(x_\nu))\qquad x_\nu\in X_\nu,\quad\nu\in\Lambda $$ Here is my proof: $$ \Vert i(f)\Vert^2=\int\limits_{\bigsqcup\{(X_\nu,\mu_\nu):\nu\in\Lambda\}}|i(f)(x)|^2 d\left(\sqcup\{\mu_\nu:\nu\in\Lambda\}\right)(x)= $$ $$ \sum\limits_{\nu\in\Lambda}\quad\int\limits_{X_\nu}|i(f)(x_\nu)|^2d\mu_\nu(x_\nu)= \sum\limits_{\nu\in\Lambda}\quad\int\limits_{X_\nu}|f(\nu)(x_\nu)|^2d\mu_\nu(x_\nu)= $$ $$ \sum\limits_{\nu\in\Lambda}\Vert f(\nu)\Vert^2=\Vert f\Vert^2.$$ Hence $i$ is an isometry. The problem is that I used here summation over sets of indices which can be uncountable. I'm not familiar with this notions and how rigorously define them. If you know where I can read about this type of summation with all defintions and theorems give me a link.

My question: Is this proof correct?

share|cite|improve this question
In this thread there's an explanation of how to define the sum of an arbitrarily indexed family of real numbers. – t.b. Jan 3 '12 at 4:38
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Yes, your argument is correct, if your $\bigoplus$ means the completion that is implicit in what you write.

The issue about possibly-uncountably-many non-negative reals is not serious: only countably-many summands can be non-zero. (Proof: partition a set of positive reals according to which intervals $(1/n,1/(n+1)]$ they lie in. Each interval can contain only finitely-many summands, or the sum would diverge. Thus, there are only countably-many.)

share|cite|improve this answer

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.