2
$\begingroup$

A correct proof of the Law-Milgram Theorem using the Banach-Fixed Point Theorem could be found here on slide 10 onwards. I have another proof, which must be false, but I cannot see the fault...

Let $V$ be a vector space with inner product $\langle\cdot, \cdot \rangle$ and induced norm $\|u\| := \sqrt{\langle u,u \rangle}$ and $a : V\times V \to V$ a bounded bilinear form, i.e. there exists some $C > $ such that $|a(u,v)| \le C\|u\|\|v\|$.

For $v \in V$ define a linear map $(Av)(u) := a(v,u)$. Then by Riesz representation theorem there exists a unique $\tau Av$ such that for all $u \in V$ we have $$ \langle \tau Av, u \rangle = (Av)(u) $$ and this correspondence is linear in $u$ and in $v$ and isometric. So we have

1) $\|\tau Av\| = \|Av\|$ because the ''Riesz correspondence'' is isometric,

2) $\|Av\| \le C\|v\|$ because $(Av)u = a(v,u) \le C\|v\|\|u\|$.

Then I want to show that there exists some $\varepsilon$ such that the map $$ T_{\varepsilon}u := u - \varepsilon(\tau Au - f) $$ (where $f$ is the ''Riesz'' representant of some given linear functional $F : V\to V$) is a contraction mapping. For this \begin{align*} \| T_{\varepsilon}u - T_{\varepsilon}v \| & = \| (u-v) - \varepsilon( \tau Au - \tau Av ) \| \\ & = \| (u-v) - \varepsilon( \tau A(u-v) ) \| \\ & \le \| (u-v) \| + \varepsilon \|\tau A(u-v) \| \\ & = \| (u-v) \| + \varepsilon \|A(u-v)\| \\ & \le \| (u-v) \| + \varepsilon C\|u-v\| \\ & = (1+\varepsilon C)\|u-v\| \end{align*} so each $\varepsilon < 0$ would work, but this result is false (see for example the correct proof in the slides, and btw that $a$ must be coercive was not required in my arguments), but I cannot see what went wrong in the argumentation, I just used valid equations for the norms and so on? Can you help me finding my fault?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

You assumed $\epsilon>0$ when you took $\epsilon$ outside of the norm. It should really be $|\epsilon|\,.$ This would give $\|Tu-Tv\|\le (1+|\epsilon|C)\|u-v\|\,.$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Oh my god, such a stupid fault, and I starred on it thinking something with the norms in the different spaces went wrong... thank you! $\endgroup$ – StefanH Feb 4 '15 at 18:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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