0
$\begingroup$

In Linear Algebra Done Right we have a theorem that states

Riesz Representation Theorem : Suppose $V$ is finite-dimensional and $A$ is a linear functional on $V$. Then there is a unique vector $u$ such that for every $v$ : $ A(v)=\langle u , v\rangle$

However then the existence of adjoint transformation is cited using this theorem

$\langle T v, w\rangle=\left\langle v, T^{*} w\right\rangle$

To see why the definition above makes sense, suppose $T \in \mathcal{L}(V, W)$. Fix $w \in W$. Consider the linear functional on $V$ that maps $v \in V \text { to }\langle T v, w\rangle$; this linear functional depends on $T$ and $w$. By the Riesz Representation Theorem , there exists a unique vector in V such that this linear functional is given by taking the inner product with it. We call this unique vector $T^{*} w$

I don't understand how the two situations are alike. First we didn't have a transformation prior to inner product and now we do. How does the guarantee still exist? Not only that but $v$ and $w$ could belong to different dimension spaces and $T$ transforms $V$ to $W$. How does Riesz Representation Theorem hold for this case at well? The two seem a bit disconnected to me.

Riesz representation theorem does not mention transforming input by T. By applying this theorem exactly as it is stated, there exists a $w$ for the functional acting on $Tv$, so now we have $⟨𝑇𝑣,𝑤⟩$. I don't see ahead of that.

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't see what the issue is. For the Riesz representation theorem, you have a linear functional $A : V \to \mathbb{R}$ and deduce $A$ takes the form $Av = \langle u,v \rangle$. In the other setting, you have $A: V \to \mathbb{R}$ (given by $Av = \langle Tv,w \rangle$). So, applying, the Riesz representation theorem, there is some $u$ for which $Av = \langle u,v \rangle$. We denote $u$ by $T^*w$. $\endgroup$ – mathworker21 Jul 20 at 4:34
  • $\begingroup$ Riesz representation theorem does not mention transforming input by T. By applying this thorem exactly as it is stated, there exists a $w$ for the functional acting on $Tv$, so now we have ⟨𝑇𝑣,𝑤⟩. I dont see ahead of that $\endgroup$ – Rahul Deora Jul 20 at 4:46
  • $\begingroup$ Dude, read my previous comment. Define the linear functional $A : V \to \mathbb{R}$ as follows. For a given vector $v \in V$, let $Av = \langle Tv, w\rangle$. This is a valid linear functional, so Riesz representation theorem implies there is some $u$ for which $Av = \langle u,v\rangle$ for each $v \in V$. By the definition of $A$ this means $\langle Tv,w\rangle = \langle u,v \rangle$ for each $v \in V$. What exactly do you have a problem with? Be specific. $\endgroup$ – mathworker21 Jul 20 at 4:48
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused about how the T got stuck in there without the theorem changing. My defination of linear functional only extends to a dot product of two vectors as 𝐴𝑣=⟨𝑢,𝑣⟩ $\endgroup$ – Rahul Deora Jul 20 at 5:15
  • $\begingroup$ With that definition of linear functional, the riesz representation theorem you cited is a tautology. Your definition of linear functional is obviously the wrong one. $\endgroup$ – mathworker21 Jul 20 at 5:31
0
$\begingroup$

Suppose $$T_v(x)=\langle x,v\rangle$$ Given $y \in V$. Consider the linear functional $$g:V\to\mathbb{F}$$ by $$g(x)=\langle T(x),y\rangle$$ for any $x\in V$

Note that $g$ depends on $y$.

Since $g \in \mathcal{L}(V,\mathbb{F})$, by Riesz Representation Theorem $$g(x)=\langle x,y'\rangle=T_{y'}(x)$$ where $y' \in V$ is unique.

i.e. for any $x \in V$ $$\langle T(x),y\rangle = g(x)=T_{y'}(x)=\langle x,y'\rangle$$ We want it to be equal to $\langle x,T^*(y)\rangle$

Therefore, we define $$T^*:V\to V$$ by$$T^*(y)=y'$$

After checking $T^*$ is linear, the existence of $T^*$ has been shown.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$

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.