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.

  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn't any other norm you define be equivalent to the standard induced norm? $\endgroup$
    – KyleW
    Aug 13 '15 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 '15 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 '15 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 '15 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 '15 at 21:46

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.

  • $\begingroup$ 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 '19 at 20:03

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.


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.