6
$\begingroup$

Given two Banach spaces $V$ and $W$ and its tensor product $V \otimes W$.In Ryan's book "Introduction into Tensor product of Banach space", he said that it is natural to choose a norm for elementary tensors as $$\|v \otimes w\|_{V\otimes W} \leqslant \|v \|_{V}\| w \|_W$$

Now I don't understand why it is natural to require the above-mentioned inequality for a tensor norm?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You mean besides making tensoring a continuous operation? $\endgroup$ – minimalrho Aug 21 '18 at 0:08
  • $\begingroup$ @minimalrho Yes, I think there are many ways to require the tensoring continuous, (i.e. other inequalities could also make the tensoring continuous). I want to know what is so special about this one. $\endgroup$ – quallenjäger Aug 21 '18 at 0:11
3
+100
$\begingroup$

Intuitively, this requirement ensures that V $\otimes$ W, combined with the norm $\|v \otimes w\|_{V \otimes W}$, is a Banach space, as long as V and W are finite-dimensional.

Banach spaces are normed vector spaces that are closed under limit. In other words, if you take any list of vectors from some vector space $V: \{v_1, v_2, v_3,..\}$ that gets arbitrarily close to some other vector $l$ (defining distance with the norm $\|v\|_V$), then $l$ will be in $V$. We can formalize this by saying as $i$ goes to infinity, $\|l - v_i\|_V$ gets closer and closer to 0: $$\lim_{i \to \infty} \|l - v_i\|_V = 0$$

Say we have two such spaces (we'll call them $V$ and $W$.) If we have a converging sequence $\{v_1, v_2, v_3,..\}$ in $V$-space, it is natural to assume that the sequence $\{v_1 \otimes w, v_2 \otimes w, v_3 \otimes w,..\}$ should also converge (for some arbitrary $w$ from $\textbf{W}$.)$^{[1]}$ Moreso, it should converge to $l \otimes w$. Using our above notation, we can write this as $$\lim_{i \to \infty} \|l \otimes w - v_i \otimes w\|_{V \otimes W} = 0$$ However, no metric exists by default on the tensor products $v \otimes w$, so this doesn't have to be true!

Let's take another look at your inequality: $$\|v \otimes w\|_{V \otimes W} \leq \|v\|_V \|w\|_W$$ Take any Cauchy sequence $\{v_i\}$ from Banach space $\textbf{V}$ and replace $v$ with $l - v_i$. That gives us $$\|(l-v_i) \otimes w\|_{V \otimes W} \leq \|l-v_i\|_V \|w\|_W$$ or, using the bilinearity of the tensor product, $$\|l \otimes w -v_i \otimes w\|_{V \otimes W} \leq \|l-v_i\|_V \|w\|_W$$ As $i\to\infty$, the right side goes to 0. Since norms are necessarily non-negative, this means the left side must also go to zero. But this is $\textit{exactly the definition}$ of what it means for $\{v_1 \otimes w, v_2 \otimes w, v_3 \otimes w,..\}$ to converge to $l \otimes w$!

Furthermore, since $l \in V$ (by the definition of a Banach space), we know $l \otimes w$ must be a vector in $V \otimes W$. Since we picked $\{v_i\}$ arbitrarily (it could be any Cauchy sequence in $V$), any converging sequence in $V$ gives a corresponding converging sequence in $V \otimes W$, and the limit $l \otimes w$ exists in $V \otimes W$. In other words, $V \otimes W$ is a Banach space. This holds iff$^{[2]}$ the distance norm we choose fits the inequality.

$\\$ $\\$

$[1]$: The flipside is also true: a converging sequence $\{w_1, w_2, w_3,..\}$ in $W$ should imply the sequence $\{v \otimes w_1, v \otimes w_2, v \otimes w_3,..\}$ converges to $v \otimes l_w$ for any $v\in\textbf{V}$. Otherwise we could just write your inequality as$\|v \otimes w\|_{V \otimes W} \leq \|v\|_V$.

$[2]$: Necessity comes from considering the inverse. If we are allowed to choose a metric s.t. $\|v \otimes w\|_{V \otimes W} > \|v\|_V \|w\|_W$, then not only does $\{v_1 \otimes w, v_2 \otimes w, v_3 \otimes w,..\}$ not converge to $l \otimes w$, it might converge to something that isn't even in $V \otimes W$ -- which would be bad news for our hopes of a Banach space.

EDIT: Just realized I forgot to address the general Cauchy sequence in $V \otimes W$. Since every vector $x\in V \otimes W$ can be written as $c v \otimes \frac{1}{c^*} w$ for nonzero $c\in \mathbb{C}$, we can say that $\{v_1 \otimes w_1, v_2 \otimes w_2, v_3 \otimes w_3,..\}$ should converge to $l_v \otimes l_w$. This leads to $$\lim_{i\to\infty} \|l_v \otimes l_w - v_i \otimes w_i \|_{V \otimes W} = 0$$ The given inequality proves the equivalent statement $$\lim_{i\to\infty} \|v_i \otimes w_i - l_v \otimes l_w \|_{V \otimes W} = 0$$ when we consider the expansion of two Cauchy sequences: $\{v_1, v_2, v_3,..\}$ in $V$ and $\{w_1, w_2, w_3,..\}$ in $W$. Using the inequality: $$\|(l_v-v_i) \otimes (l_w - w_i)\|_{V \otimes W} \leq \|l_v-v_i\|_V \|l_w - w_i\|_W$$ We can expand the tensor product to $$\|l_v \otimes l_w - l_v \otimes w_i - v_i \otimes l_w + v_i \otimes w_i\|_{V \otimes W} \leq \|l_v-v_i\|_V \|l_w - w_i\|_W$$ By the case shown in the main answer, we know the middle two tensor products converge to $l_v \otimes l_w$. The left side then becomes the "equivalent statement" above, and the limit $i\to\infty$ goes to 0 with similar logic (non-negative and less or equal to a statement whose limit is 0.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. Are you sure that it would induce $V \otimes W $ is a banach space? Because your argument would only work if you can represent your tensor algebra as linear combination of $e_i \otimes e_j$, where $e_i,e_j$ are the basis of finite dimensional space $V$ and $W$. You will definitely have a problem if $V$ and $W$ are assumed to be infinite dimensional. $\endgroup$ – quallenjäger Aug 28 '18 at 23:42
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure. This answer seems to suggest so, but I can't think of any definite reason it would. Updated my answer accordingly. $\endgroup$ – Verta Aug 29 '18 at 0:00

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.