I am really stuck in the following problem:

Let $X=C[0,1]$ with the inner product $\langle x,y\rangle=\int_0^1 x(t)\overline y(t)\,dt$ $\forall$ $x(t),y(t)\in C[0,1]$

$X_0 =\{x(t) \in X :\int_0^1 t^2x(t)\,dt=0\}$and $X_0^\bot$ be the orthogonal complement of $X_0$.

(A) which of the following is correct:

(1)both $X_0$ and $X_0^\bot$ are complete

(2) neither $X_0$ nor $X_0^\bot$ is complete

(3)$X_0$ is complete but $X_0^\bot$ is not complete

(4) $X_0^\bot$ is complete but $X_0$ is not complete

I saw the following answer on stackexchange:

"Consider function $z(t)=t^2$ and the linear functional $$ f:(C([0,1],\Vert\cdot\Vert_2)\to\mathbb{C}:x\mapsto \langle z,x\rangle $$ Obviously $f$ if continuous, hence its kernel is closed subspace of codimension $1$. Since $f(z)\neq 0$, then $X=\ker f\oplus\mathbb{C}z$. Note $z\in X_0^\perp$, and $X\oplus X_0^\perp\subset X$. Hence $X=X_0\oplus X_0^\perp$, and $X_0^\perp=X/\ker f=\mathbb{C}$. Thus $X_0^\perp$ is complete. If $X_0$ would be complete, then $X$ would be also complete because as direct sum of complete spaces. But $X$ is not complete, so does $X_0$."

The answer works fine for me but I do not understand the following aspect: We know that C[0,1] under given inner product is not a hilbert space (and $X_0$ is a closed subspace).Then,how can one say X=$X_0 +X_0^\bot$(since,this holds if X is a hilbert space and $X_0$ is a closed subspace of X).How has he expressed X as the direct sum.

I am really sorry if this question is not up to standard of stackexchange community.

any help would be appreciated...

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It can also be the case if $X$ is just a pre-Hilbert space and $X_0$ is a Banach subspace. $\endgroup$ – user384138 Jan 25 '17 at 9:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Open Ball:could you please elaborate... $\endgroup$ – Abhishek Shrivastava Jan 25 '17 at 9:21

As pointed out by @Open Ball, we can relax some requirement for the orthogonal decomposition.

Indeed, if $W$ is a subspace of an inner product space $V$ and there exists an orthogonal projection $P$ from $V$ onto $W$, then the mapping

$$ v \mapsto (Pv, v - Pv)$$

provides an isometry between $V$ and $W \oplus W^{\perp}$. A sufficient condition for the existence of such $P$ is that $W$ is complete w.r.t. the topology induced by the inner product.

A proof for this general claim is provided below, though this is easy to prove when $W$ is finite-dimensional. For instance, if $\dim W = n \in \Bbb{N}$ and $\{w_1, \cdots, w_n\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $W$, then

$$ Pv = \sum_{k=1}^{n} \langle w_k, v \rangle w_k $$

is an orthogonal projection onto $W$. Now we can apply this fact to $V = X$ and $W = \Bbb{C}z$ with $z(t) = t^2$.

Lemma. Let $(V, \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle)$ be a (real or complex) inner product space equipped with the topology induced by the inner product. If $W$ is a complete subspace of $V$, then there exists an orthogonal projection $P$ from $V$ onto $W$.

(In case of complex inner product, we adopt the convention that $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is conjugate-linear in the first argument and linear in the second argument.)

Proof. Define the orthogonal projection $P : V \to W$ such that $Pv$ is the unique element in $W$ that minimizes the distance to $v$, or succinctly,

$$ Pv := \underset{w \in W}{\arg\min} \| v - w \|. $$

Here, $\| \cdot \| := |\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle|^{1/2}$ is the norm induced by the inner product. It is a routine job to prove that $P$ is well-defined:

  • Existence. Let $\ell = \inf\{ \| v - w \| : w \in W \}$. Then for any $w, w' \in W$, the parallelogram law tells us that

    \begin{align*} \|w - w'\|^2 &= 2\|w - v\|^2 + 2\|w' - v\|^2 - 4 \left\| \frac{w + w'}{2} - v \right\|^2 \\ &\leq 2\|w - v\|^2 + 2\|w' - v\|^2 - 4\ell^2. \tag{*} \end{align*}

    Now for each $n$, we can find an element $w_n \in W$ such that $\|v - w_n\|^2 < \ell^2 + 2^{-n}$. Then by $\text{(*)}$,

    $$ \|w_n - w_{n+1}\|^2 \leq 2(\ell^2 + 2^{-n}) + 2(\ell^2 + 2^{-n-1}) - 4\ell^2 = 3\cdot 2^{-n}. $$

    Thus $(w_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence. Since $W$ is complete, $(w_n)$ converges to some $w \in W$. This $w$ satisfies $\|v - w\| = \ell$ and hence $w$ is a distance-minimizer.

  • Uniqueness. If $w, w' \in W$ minimizes the distance to $v$, then $\ell = \|v - w\| = \|v - w'\|$. By $\text{(*)}$,

    $$ \|w - w'\|^2 \leq 2\ell^2 + 2\ell^2 - 4\ell^2 = 0. $$

    Therefore $w = w'$.

The mapping $P : V \to W$ is now well-defined and surjective. It remains to prove that $P$ is indeed an orthogonal projection to $W$. Again, establishing this claim is routine:

  • Orthogonality. The proof follows from the usual variational principle. Let $v \in V$. Then for any $w \in W$, the quadratic function

    $$t \mapsto \| v - Pv - tw \|^2 = \|v - Pv\|^2 - 2t\operatorname{Re}\langle v - Pv, w \rangle + t^2\|w\|^2 $$

    achieves the global minimum at $t = 0$. This implies that $\operatorname{Re}\langle v - Pv, w \rangle = 0$. Replacing $w$ by $iw$ in the complex inner product case, this implies that $\langle v - Pv, w \rangle = 0$. Since this is true for all $w \in W$, we have $v - Pv \in W^{\perp}$.

    Conversely, assume that $w \in W$ satisfies $v - w \in W^{\perp}$. Then by the Pythagoras theorem

    $$ \ell^2 = \| v - Pv \|^2 = \| v - w \|^2 + \| w - Pv \|^2 \geq \ell^2 + \| w - Pv \|^2. $$

    This shows that $w = Pv$. Thus $Pv$ is specified as the unique element $w \in W$ such that $v - w \in W^{\perp}$.

  • Linearity. If $u, v \in V$ and $\alpha, \beta$ are scalars, then for any $w \in W$

    $$ \langle (\alpha u + \beta v) - (\alpha Pu + \beta Pv), w \rangle = \bar{\alpha} \langle u - Pu, w \rangle + \bar{\beta} \langle v - Pv, w \rangle = 0 $$

    and hence $\alpha Pu + \beta Pv = P(\alpha u + \beta v)$.


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.