4
$\begingroup$

Let $ S $ be a normed vector space (over $\mathbb{R}$, say, for simplicity) with norm $ \lVert\cdot\rVert$.

Can this norm be induced from inner product only through $\lVert \cdot \rVert = \sqrt{\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle}$ ?

As to prove the if part of "A norm is induced by inner product iff the norm satisfies parallelogram equality", $\lVert \cdot \rVert = \sqrt{\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle}$ is used.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn't any other norm you define be equivalent to the standard induced norm? $\endgroup$
    – KyleW
    Aug 13, 2015 at 6:07
  • $\begingroup$ This is the Jordan-von Neumann Theorem. Here's a proof in the complex case: math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m113w10/public_html/… . $\endgroup$ Aug 13, 2015 at 7:01
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleW I didn't get you. If you mean like L_3 norm to be equivalent to the standard induced norm, then it's not true. $\endgroup$
    – vivkul
    Aug 13, 2015 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ In a finite dimensional inner product space, any two norms you induce from the inner product will be equivalent. $\endgroup$
    – KyleW
    Aug 13, 2015 at 13:10
  • $\begingroup$ Your sentence beginning "As to prove .." is unintelligible. Please clarify it: saying "can be induced" rather than "is induced" makes a significant difference to the meaning. $\endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Aug 14, 2015 at 21:46

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

In an inner product space $$ \langle v, w \rangle = \frac{1}{2}(\|v + w\|^2 -\|v\|^2 - \|w\|^2) $$ So the norm determines the inner product. The norm on a normed vector space is induced by an inner product iff the function $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ defined by the above formula satisfies the axioms for an inner product. The Jordan-von Neumann theorem says that this is so iff $\|\cdot\|$ satisfies the parallelogram identity: $$ \|v + w\|^2 + \|v - w\|^2 = 2(\|v\|^2 + \|w\|^2) $$ Normed vector spaces with this property are called Euclidean.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks to the person who kindly corrected the typos in the second equation above. Unfortunately, your edit was rejected by the moderators. A comment would probably have been a better way to raise the issue. $\endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Oct 7, 2019 at 20:03
2
$\begingroup$

Well, this depends entirely on what you mean by a norm being induced by an inner product. The way this expression is usually used, the norm induced by the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is by definition the norm $\lVert \cdot \rVert = \sqrt{\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle}$. If you were to use the expression more loosely, you might for instance say that $\lVert \cdot \rVert = 2\sqrt{\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle}$ is also "a norm induced by $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$". You wouldn't be following standard usage, but it would be understandable. In any case, this definitional question is the only one at issue here; as far as your question seems to imply that there is anything to prove here, I believe this is mistaken. In the theorem you quote at the end of the question, the above standard definition of a norm being induced by an inner product is presupposed.

$\endgroup$
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .