Prove that the following map is compactCompact operator and compact embeddingsShowing that smoothing...
What is the orbit and expected lifetime of Crew Dragon trunk?
Sort array by month and year
How to install "rounded" brake pads
Is divide-by-zero a security vulnerability?
A running toilet that stops itself
What does it take to become a wilderness skills guide as a business?
What can I do if someone tampers with my SSH public key?
Giving a career talk in my old university, how prominently should I tell students my salary?
If nine coins are tossed, what is the probability that the number of heads is even?
Will the concrete slab in a partially heated shed conduct a lot of heat to the unconditioned area?
Why does this boat have a landing pad? (SpaceX's GO Searcher) Any plans for propulsive capsule landings?
I can't die. Who am I?
Who has more? Ireland or Iceland?
What should I do when a paper is published similar to my PhD thesis without citation?
What does "rhumatis" mean?
How spaceships determine each other's mass in space?
Ultrafilters as a double dual
Why aren't there more Gauls like Obelix?
Does an unused member variable take up memory?
How can I portion out frozen cookie dough?
Use Mercury as quenching liquid for swords?
Can inspiration allow the Rogue to make a Sneak Attack?
Why does a car's steering wheel get lighter with increasing speed
Is it a Cyclops number? "Nobody" knows!
Prove that the following map is compact
Compact operator and compact embeddingsShowing that smoothing operators are compactArzela-Ascoli and adjoint of compact operator compactProof of equicontinuous and pointwise bounded implies compactEquicontinuous and pointwise bounded implies compactweakly continuous linear mapArgue, why these operators are compact or not.Show set of functions compact and convexShowing a set is compact using Arzelà–Ascoli theoremFor which n differential operator $C^{(n)}[0, 1] rightarrow C[0,1]$ is compact
$begingroup$
I'm studying by myself PDEs without having done Functional Analysis and I'm trying do the following exercise of the book "Partial Differential Equations I" by Michael E. Taylor on Appendix $A$ - Section $6$ (page $592$):
- Prove the following result, also known as part of Ascoli's theorem. If $X$ is a compact metric space, $B_j$ are Banach spaces, and $K: B_1 longrightarrow B_2$ is a compact operator, then $kappa f(x) = K(f(x))$ defines a compact map $kappa: mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1) longrightarrow C(X,B_2)$, for any $alpha > 0$.
$mathcal{C}^{alpha}$ denotes a space with $alpha$-Holder continuity (this notation was introduced on the final of the page $317$).
I would like to know if my attempt it's correct until where I wrote and, if it is correct, how I can ensure the limit below lives in $C(X,B_2)$.
$textbf{My attempt:}$
Firstly, we observe that $kappa$ is well-defined, otherwise, $K$ wouldn't well defined, which would be an absurd since $K$ is a map.
Now, given a bounded sequence $(f_n)$ in $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ and fixing $x in X$, we have that $(f_n(x))$ is a bounded sequence in $B_1$. By compactness of the map $K$, there is a subsequence $(f_{n_l}(x))$ in $B_1$ such that $K(f_{n_l}(x)) rightarrow K(f(x)) in B_2$, i.e., given $varepsilon > 0$, there is $N(x) in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$l > N(x) Longrightarrow ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} < frac{varepsilon }{3} (*)$$
The subsequence $((K circ f_{n_l}))$ is in $C(X,B_2)$ since $K$ and $f_{n_l}$ are continuous functions. Since the limit is unique, $f$ is well-defined.
By continuity of $K circ f_{n_l}$ in every $x in X$, there is $delta_x > 0$ such that
$$||y - x||_X < delta_x Longrightarrow ||K (f_{n_l})(y) - K (f_{n_l})(x)||_{B_2} < frac{varepsilon}{3} (**)$$
W.l.o.g., we assume $frac{1}{N(x)} < delta_x$. By compactness of $X$, there is a finite subcover of $X$ by open balls $B(x_i,frac{1}{N(x_i)}) subset X$, $i = 1, cdots, j$. Thus, arguing as before, we find $(K circ f_{n_l}(x))$ such that $(*)$ holds for $N := max_limits{ i in { 1,cdots,j } } N(x_i)$. Denoting by $delta := frac{1}{N}$ and using $(*)$ and $(**)$, we have that
$||K(f(y)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} leq ||K(f(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(y))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(x))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2}$
$begin{eqnarray*}
||K(f(y)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} &leq& ||K(f(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(y))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(x))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2}\
&leq& frac{varepsilon}{3} + frac{varepsilon}{3} + frac{varepsilon}{3} = varepsilon,
end{eqnarray*}$
whenever $l > N$ and $||y - x||_X < delta$, hence $(K circ f) in C(X,B_2)$. $square$
I'm stuck here, because I can't prove that $(K circ f) in C(X,B_2)$. I know that $(K circ f_{n_l}) in C(X,B_2)$ for each $l in mathbb{N}^*$, $(K circ f_{n_l})(x) rightarrow (K circ f)(x)$, $(K circ f_{n_l})$ is bounded I know the uniform limit of continuous functions is continuous, but I can't see how I can prove the pointwise convergence is, indeed, uniform. The only thing that I thought about this is use Ascoli's theorem because I know that $(K circ f_{n_l})$ is bounded, but I can't see how the family ${ (K circ f_{n_l}) in C(X,B_2) ; l in mathbb{N}^* }$ is equicontinuous.
I thought about the MaoWao's comment and I think I'm close to solving the question, but I don't sure if $(*)$ by the $N$ that I chose. If this is not the right $N$ that I need to take, someone can help me with a hint about how I can choose the $N$ without depending on $x$?
Thanks in advance!
$textbf{EDIT:}$
The version of Ascoli's theorem that I'm using:
$textbf{Ascoli-Arzela's theorem:}$ let be $E$ a set of continuous maps $f: K longrightarrow N$, where $K$ is compact. $E subset C(K,N)$ is relatively compact if, and only if, the following holds:
1) $E$ is equicontinuous;
2) For each $x in K$, $E(x) = { f(x) ; f in E }$ is relatively compact in $N$.
functional-analysis proof-verification compact-operators
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm studying by myself PDEs without having done Functional Analysis and I'm trying do the following exercise of the book "Partial Differential Equations I" by Michael E. Taylor on Appendix $A$ - Section $6$ (page $592$):
- Prove the following result, also known as part of Ascoli's theorem. If $X$ is a compact metric space, $B_j$ are Banach spaces, and $K: B_1 longrightarrow B_2$ is a compact operator, then $kappa f(x) = K(f(x))$ defines a compact map $kappa: mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1) longrightarrow C(X,B_2)$, for any $alpha > 0$.
$mathcal{C}^{alpha}$ denotes a space with $alpha$-Holder continuity (this notation was introduced on the final of the page $317$).
I would like to know if my attempt it's correct until where I wrote and, if it is correct, how I can ensure the limit below lives in $C(X,B_2)$.
$textbf{My attempt:}$
Firstly, we observe that $kappa$ is well-defined, otherwise, $K$ wouldn't well defined, which would be an absurd since $K$ is a map.
Now, given a bounded sequence $(f_n)$ in $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ and fixing $x in X$, we have that $(f_n(x))$ is a bounded sequence in $B_1$. By compactness of the map $K$, there is a subsequence $(f_{n_l}(x))$ in $B_1$ such that $K(f_{n_l}(x)) rightarrow K(f(x)) in B_2$, i.e., given $varepsilon > 0$, there is $N(x) in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$l > N(x) Longrightarrow ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} < frac{varepsilon }{3} (*)$$
The subsequence $((K circ f_{n_l}))$ is in $C(X,B_2)$ since $K$ and $f_{n_l}$ are continuous functions. Since the limit is unique, $f$ is well-defined.
By continuity of $K circ f_{n_l}$ in every $x in X$, there is $delta_x > 0$ such that
$$||y - x||_X < delta_x Longrightarrow ||K (f_{n_l})(y) - K (f_{n_l})(x)||_{B_2} < frac{varepsilon}{3} (**)$$
W.l.o.g., we assume $frac{1}{N(x)} < delta_x$. By compactness of $X$, there is a finite subcover of $X$ by open balls $B(x_i,frac{1}{N(x_i)}) subset X$, $i = 1, cdots, j$. Thus, arguing as before, we find $(K circ f_{n_l}(x))$ such that $(*)$ holds for $N := max_limits{ i in { 1,cdots,j } } N(x_i)$. Denoting by $delta := frac{1}{N}$ and using $(*)$ and $(**)$, we have that
$||K(f(y)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} leq ||K(f(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(y))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(x))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2}$
$begin{eqnarray*}
||K(f(y)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} &leq& ||K(f(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(y))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(x))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2}\
&leq& frac{varepsilon}{3} + frac{varepsilon}{3} + frac{varepsilon}{3} = varepsilon,
end{eqnarray*}$
whenever $l > N$ and $||y - x||_X < delta$, hence $(K circ f) in C(X,B_2)$. $square$
I'm stuck here, because I can't prove that $(K circ f) in C(X,B_2)$. I know that $(K circ f_{n_l}) in C(X,B_2)$ for each $l in mathbb{N}^*$, $(K circ f_{n_l})(x) rightarrow (K circ f)(x)$, $(K circ f_{n_l})$ is bounded I know the uniform limit of continuous functions is continuous, but I can't see how I can prove the pointwise convergence is, indeed, uniform. The only thing that I thought about this is use Ascoli's theorem because I know that $(K circ f_{n_l})$ is bounded, but I can't see how the family ${ (K circ f_{n_l}) in C(X,B_2) ; l in mathbb{N}^* }$ is equicontinuous.
I thought about the MaoWao's comment and I think I'm close to solving the question, but I don't sure if $(*)$ by the $N$ that I chose. If this is not the right $N$ that I need to take, someone can help me with a hint about how I can choose the $N$ without depending on $x$?
Thanks in advance!
$textbf{EDIT:}$
The version of Ascoli's theorem that I'm using:
$textbf{Ascoli-Arzela's theorem:}$ let be $E$ a set of continuous maps $f: K longrightarrow N$, where $K$ is compact. $E subset C(K,N)$ is relatively compact if, and only if, the following holds:
1) $E$ is equicontinuous;
2) For each $x in K$, $E(x) = { f(x) ; f in E }$ is relatively compact in $N$.
functional-analysis proof-verification compact-operators
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The problem with your attempt is that the subsequence you choose depends on the point $x$. It is not immediate why there should be a subsequence working for all points simultaneously. Also, could you mention which version of Ascoli's theorem (if any) you already know.
$endgroup$
– MaoWao
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@MaoWao, I included the version of Ascoli's theorem that I have in mind.
$endgroup$
– George
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In your version of Ascoli-Arzela, what is $N$?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge, $N$ is a metric space, this version of AScoli-Arzela is for metric spaces
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm studying by myself PDEs without having done Functional Analysis and I'm trying do the following exercise of the book "Partial Differential Equations I" by Michael E. Taylor on Appendix $A$ - Section $6$ (page $592$):
- Prove the following result, also known as part of Ascoli's theorem. If $X$ is a compact metric space, $B_j$ are Banach spaces, and $K: B_1 longrightarrow B_2$ is a compact operator, then $kappa f(x) = K(f(x))$ defines a compact map $kappa: mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1) longrightarrow C(X,B_2)$, for any $alpha > 0$.
$mathcal{C}^{alpha}$ denotes a space with $alpha$-Holder continuity (this notation was introduced on the final of the page $317$).
I would like to know if my attempt it's correct until where I wrote and, if it is correct, how I can ensure the limit below lives in $C(X,B_2)$.
$textbf{My attempt:}$
Firstly, we observe that $kappa$ is well-defined, otherwise, $K$ wouldn't well defined, which would be an absurd since $K$ is a map.
Now, given a bounded sequence $(f_n)$ in $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ and fixing $x in X$, we have that $(f_n(x))$ is a bounded sequence in $B_1$. By compactness of the map $K$, there is a subsequence $(f_{n_l}(x))$ in $B_1$ such that $K(f_{n_l}(x)) rightarrow K(f(x)) in B_2$, i.e., given $varepsilon > 0$, there is $N(x) in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$l > N(x) Longrightarrow ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} < frac{varepsilon }{3} (*)$$
The subsequence $((K circ f_{n_l}))$ is in $C(X,B_2)$ since $K$ and $f_{n_l}$ are continuous functions. Since the limit is unique, $f$ is well-defined.
By continuity of $K circ f_{n_l}$ in every $x in X$, there is $delta_x > 0$ such that
$$||y - x||_X < delta_x Longrightarrow ||K (f_{n_l})(y) - K (f_{n_l})(x)||_{B_2} < frac{varepsilon}{3} (**)$$
W.l.o.g., we assume $frac{1}{N(x)} < delta_x$. By compactness of $X$, there is a finite subcover of $X$ by open balls $B(x_i,frac{1}{N(x_i)}) subset X$, $i = 1, cdots, j$. Thus, arguing as before, we find $(K circ f_{n_l}(x))$ such that $(*)$ holds for $N := max_limits{ i in { 1,cdots,j } } N(x_i)$. Denoting by $delta := frac{1}{N}$ and using $(*)$ and $(**)$, we have that
$||K(f(y)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} leq ||K(f(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(y))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(x))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2}$
$begin{eqnarray*}
||K(f(y)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} &leq& ||K(f(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(y))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(x))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2}\
&leq& frac{varepsilon}{3} + frac{varepsilon}{3} + frac{varepsilon}{3} = varepsilon,
end{eqnarray*}$
whenever $l > N$ and $||y - x||_X < delta$, hence $(K circ f) in C(X,B_2)$. $square$
I'm stuck here, because I can't prove that $(K circ f) in C(X,B_2)$. I know that $(K circ f_{n_l}) in C(X,B_2)$ for each $l in mathbb{N}^*$, $(K circ f_{n_l})(x) rightarrow (K circ f)(x)$, $(K circ f_{n_l})$ is bounded I know the uniform limit of continuous functions is continuous, but I can't see how I can prove the pointwise convergence is, indeed, uniform. The only thing that I thought about this is use Ascoli's theorem because I know that $(K circ f_{n_l})$ is bounded, but I can't see how the family ${ (K circ f_{n_l}) in C(X,B_2) ; l in mathbb{N}^* }$ is equicontinuous.
I thought about the MaoWao's comment and I think I'm close to solving the question, but I don't sure if $(*)$ by the $N$ that I chose. If this is not the right $N$ that I need to take, someone can help me with a hint about how I can choose the $N$ without depending on $x$?
Thanks in advance!
$textbf{EDIT:}$
The version of Ascoli's theorem that I'm using:
$textbf{Ascoli-Arzela's theorem:}$ let be $E$ a set of continuous maps $f: K longrightarrow N$, where $K$ is compact. $E subset C(K,N)$ is relatively compact if, and only if, the following holds:
1) $E$ is equicontinuous;
2) For each $x in K$, $E(x) = { f(x) ; f in E }$ is relatively compact in $N$.
functional-analysis proof-verification compact-operators
$endgroup$
I'm studying by myself PDEs without having done Functional Analysis and I'm trying do the following exercise of the book "Partial Differential Equations I" by Michael E. Taylor on Appendix $A$ - Section $6$ (page $592$):
- Prove the following result, also known as part of Ascoli's theorem. If $X$ is a compact metric space, $B_j$ are Banach spaces, and $K: B_1 longrightarrow B_2$ is a compact operator, then $kappa f(x) = K(f(x))$ defines a compact map $kappa: mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1) longrightarrow C(X,B_2)$, for any $alpha > 0$.
$mathcal{C}^{alpha}$ denotes a space with $alpha$-Holder continuity (this notation was introduced on the final of the page $317$).
I would like to know if my attempt it's correct until where I wrote and, if it is correct, how I can ensure the limit below lives in $C(X,B_2)$.
$textbf{My attempt:}$
Firstly, we observe that $kappa$ is well-defined, otherwise, $K$ wouldn't well defined, which would be an absurd since $K$ is a map.
Now, given a bounded sequence $(f_n)$ in $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ and fixing $x in X$, we have that $(f_n(x))$ is a bounded sequence in $B_1$. By compactness of the map $K$, there is a subsequence $(f_{n_l}(x))$ in $B_1$ such that $K(f_{n_l}(x)) rightarrow K(f(x)) in B_2$, i.e., given $varepsilon > 0$, there is $N(x) in mathbb{N}$ such that
$$l > N(x) Longrightarrow ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} < frac{varepsilon }{3} (*)$$
The subsequence $((K circ f_{n_l}))$ is in $C(X,B_2)$ since $K$ and $f_{n_l}$ are continuous functions. Since the limit is unique, $f$ is well-defined.
By continuity of $K circ f_{n_l}$ in every $x in X$, there is $delta_x > 0$ such that
$$||y - x||_X < delta_x Longrightarrow ||K (f_{n_l})(y) - K (f_{n_l})(x)||_{B_2} < frac{varepsilon}{3} (**)$$
W.l.o.g., we assume $frac{1}{N(x)} < delta_x$. By compactness of $X$, there is a finite subcover of $X$ by open balls $B(x_i,frac{1}{N(x_i)}) subset X$, $i = 1, cdots, j$. Thus, arguing as before, we find $(K circ f_{n_l}(x))$ such that $(*)$ holds for $N := max_limits{ i in { 1,cdots,j } } N(x_i)$. Denoting by $delta := frac{1}{N}$ and using $(*)$ and $(**)$, we have that
$||K(f(y)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} leq ||K(f(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(y))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(x))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2}$
$begin{eqnarray*}
||K(f(y)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2} &leq& ||K(f(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(y))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(y)) - K(f_{n_l}(x))||_{B_2} + ||K(f_{n_l}(x)) - K(f(x))||_{B_2}\
&leq& frac{varepsilon}{3} + frac{varepsilon}{3} + frac{varepsilon}{3} = varepsilon,
end{eqnarray*}$
whenever $l > N$ and $||y - x||_X < delta$, hence $(K circ f) in C(X,B_2)$. $square$
I'm stuck here, because I can't prove that $(K circ f) in C(X,B_2)$. I know that $(K circ f_{n_l}) in C(X,B_2)$ for each $l in mathbb{N}^*$, $(K circ f_{n_l})(x) rightarrow (K circ f)(x)$, $(K circ f_{n_l})$ is bounded I know the uniform limit of continuous functions is continuous, but I can't see how I can prove the pointwise convergence is, indeed, uniform. The only thing that I thought about this is use Ascoli's theorem because I know that $(K circ f_{n_l})$ is bounded, but I can't see how the family ${ (K circ f_{n_l}) in C(X,B_2) ; l in mathbb{N}^* }$ is equicontinuous.
I thought about the MaoWao's comment and I think I'm close to solving the question, but I don't sure if $(*)$ by the $N$ that I chose. If this is not the right $N$ that I need to take, someone can help me with a hint about how I can choose the $N$ without depending on $x$?
Thanks in advance!
$textbf{EDIT:}$
The version of Ascoli's theorem that I'm using:
$textbf{Ascoli-Arzela's theorem:}$ let be $E$ a set of continuous maps $f: K longrightarrow N$, where $K$ is compact. $E subset C(K,N)$ is relatively compact if, and only if, the following holds:
1) $E$ is equicontinuous;
2) For each $x in K$, $E(x) = { f(x) ; f in E }$ is relatively compact in $N$.
functional-analysis proof-verification compact-operators
functional-analysis proof-verification compact-operators
edited yesterday
George
asked 2 days ago
GeorgeGeorge
838615
838615
$begingroup$
The problem with your attempt is that the subsequence you choose depends on the point $x$. It is not immediate why there should be a subsequence working for all points simultaneously. Also, could you mention which version of Ascoli's theorem (if any) you already know.
$endgroup$
– MaoWao
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@MaoWao, I included the version of Ascoli's theorem that I have in mind.
$endgroup$
– George
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In your version of Ascoli-Arzela, what is $N$?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge, $N$ is a metric space, this version of AScoli-Arzela is for metric spaces
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem with your attempt is that the subsequence you choose depends on the point $x$. It is not immediate why there should be a subsequence working for all points simultaneously. Also, could you mention which version of Ascoli's theorem (if any) you already know.
$endgroup$
– MaoWao
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@MaoWao, I included the version of Ascoli's theorem that I have in mind.
$endgroup$
– George
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In your version of Ascoli-Arzela, what is $N$?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge, $N$ is a metric space, this version of AScoli-Arzela is for metric spaces
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
The problem with your attempt is that the subsequence you choose depends on the point $x$. It is not immediate why there should be a subsequence working for all points simultaneously. Also, could you mention which version of Ascoli's theorem (if any) you already know.
$endgroup$
– MaoWao
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The problem with your attempt is that the subsequence you choose depends on the point $x$. It is not immediate why there should be a subsequence working for all points simultaneously. Also, could you mention which version of Ascoli's theorem (if any) you already know.
$endgroup$
– MaoWao
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@MaoWao, I included the version of Ascoli's theorem that I have in mind.
$endgroup$
– George
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@MaoWao, I included the version of Ascoli's theorem that I have in mind.
$endgroup$
– George
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In your version of Ascoli-Arzela, what is $N$?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
In your version of Ascoli-Arzela, what is $N$?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge, $N$ is a metric space, this version of AScoli-Arzela is for metric spaces
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge, $N$ is a metric space, this version of AScoli-Arzela is for metric spaces
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This will follow pretty directly from the version of Ascoli-Arzela that you already know.
Let $D$ be the unit ball of $C^alpha(X, B_1)$. Your goal is to show that $E = kappa D$ is relatively compact, i.e. that the set $E = {kappa f : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $C(X, B_2)$ (here $N = B_2$). You want to verify the hypotheses of Ascoli-Arzela.
For (1), use the Hölder continuity. You should be able to show that for any $f in D$ and any $x,y in X$, we have $|(kappa f)(x) - (kappa f)(y)|_{B_2} = |K(f(x)) - K(f(y))|_{B_2} le |K| d(x,y)^alpha$, where $|K|$ is the operator norm of $K$ and $d$ is the metric on $X$. Equicontinuity should then follow easily.
For (2), fix $x in X$ and note that for any $f in D$, we have $|f(x)|_{B_1} le 1$. Now use the fact that $K$ is a compact operator to conclude that ${(kappa f)(x) : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $B_2$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood your hints, but I don't sure if I understand why you are considering $D$ as the unit ball of $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$. The idea is consider $D$ as a bounded set, which is contained in a closed ball $overline{B}(0, A) subset mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ for some $A > 0$. Since $f in D$, we must have $||f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq A$, then $||frac{1}{A} f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq 1$. Thus, we can suppose w.l.o.g. that $D = overline{B}(0,1)$, is this the reason why you assume $D$ the unit ball or the reason is more subtle?
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but, as I said in the OP, I never did Functional Analysis, I just want to be sure if I understood the argument.
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
For me, the definition of "$kappa : Y_1 to Y_2$ is a compact operator" is "the image of the unit ball of $Y_1$ under $kappa$ is a relatively compact set in $Y_2$". What's your definition?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
The same of Appendix $D.5$ of Evans' book: "let $X$ and $Y$ be real Banach spaces. A bounded linear operator $$K: X longrightarrow Y$$ is called compact provided for each bounded sequence ${ u_k }_{k=1}^{infty} subset X$, the sequence ${ Ku_k }_{k=1}^{infty}$ is precompact in $Y$; that is, there exists a subsequence ${ u_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ such that ${ Ku_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ converges in $Y$."
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Okay. Then the rescaling argument you gave above can be used to show that my definition is equivalent to Evans'.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3138248%2fprove-that-the-following-map-is-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This will follow pretty directly from the version of Ascoli-Arzela that you already know.
Let $D$ be the unit ball of $C^alpha(X, B_1)$. Your goal is to show that $E = kappa D$ is relatively compact, i.e. that the set $E = {kappa f : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $C(X, B_2)$ (here $N = B_2$). You want to verify the hypotheses of Ascoli-Arzela.
For (1), use the Hölder continuity. You should be able to show that for any $f in D$ and any $x,y in X$, we have $|(kappa f)(x) - (kappa f)(y)|_{B_2} = |K(f(x)) - K(f(y))|_{B_2} le |K| d(x,y)^alpha$, where $|K|$ is the operator norm of $K$ and $d$ is the metric on $X$. Equicontinuity should then follow easily.
For (2), fix $x in X$ and note that for any $f in D$, we have $|f(x)|_{B_1} le 1$. Now use the fact that $K$ is a compact operator to conclude that ${(kappa f)(x) : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $B_2$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood your hints, but I don't sure if I understand why you are considering $D$ as the unit ball of $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$. The idea is consider $D$ as a bounded set, which is contained in a closed ball $overline{B}(0, A) subset mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ for some $A > 0$. Since $f in D$, we must have $||f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq A$, then $||frac{1}{A} f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq 1$. Thus, we can suppose w.l.o.g. that $D = overline{B}(0,1)$, is this the reason why you assume $D$ the unit ball or the reason is more subtle?
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but, as I said in the OP, I never did Functional Analysis, I just want to be sure if I understood the argument.
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
For me, the definition of "$kappa : Y_1 to Y_2$ is a compact operator" is "the image of the unit ball of $Y_1$ under $kappa$ is a relatively compact set in $Y_2$". What's your definition?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
The same of Appendix $D.5$ of Evans' book: "let $X$ and $Y$ be real Banach spaces. A bounded linear operator $$K: X longrightarrow Y$$ is called compact provided for each bounded sequence ${ u_k }_{k=1}^{infty} subset X$, the sequence ${ Ku_k }_{k=1}^{infty}$ is precompact in $Y$; that is, there exists a subsequence ${ u_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ such that ${ Ku_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ converges in $Y$."
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Okay. Then the rescaling argument you gave above can be used to show that my definition is equivalent to Evans'.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This will follow pretty directly from the version of Ascoli-Arzela that you already know.
Let $D$ be the unit ball of $C^alpha(X, B_1)$. Your goal is to show that $E = kappa D$ is relatively compact, i.e. that the set $E = {kappa f : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $C(X, B_2)$ (here $N = B_2$). You want to verify the hypotheses of Ascoli-Arzela.
For (1), use the Hölder continuity. You should be able to show that for any $f in D$ and any $x,y in X$, we have $|(kappa f)(x) - (kappa f)(y)|_{B_2} = |K(f(x)) - K(f(y))|_{B_2} le |K| d(x,y)^alpha$, where $|K|$ is the operator norm of $K$ and $d$ is the metric on $X$. Equicontinuity should then follow easily.
For (2), fix $x in X$ and note that for any $f in D$, we have $|f(x)|_{B_1} le 1$. Now use the fact that $K$ is a compact operator to conclude that ${(kappa f)(x) : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $B_2$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood your hints, but I don't sure if I understand why you are considering $D$ as the unit ball of $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$. The idea is consider $D$ as a bounded set, which is contained in a closed ball $overline{B}(0, A) subset mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ for some $A > 0$. Since $f in D$, we must have $||f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq A$, then $||frac{1}{A} f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq 1$. Thus, we can suppose w.l.o.g. that $D = overline{B}(0,1)$, is this the reason why you assume $D$ the unit ball or the reason is more subtle?
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but, as I said in the OP, I never did Functional Analysis, I just want to be sure if I understood the argument.
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
For me, the definition of "$kappa : Y_1 to Y_2$ is a compact operator" is "the image of the unit ball of $Y_1$ under $kappa$ is a relatively compact set in $Y_2$". What's your definition?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
The same of Appendix $D.5$ of Evans' book: "let $X$ and $Y$ be real Banach spaces. A bounded linear operator $$K: X longrightarrow Y$$ is called compact provided for each bounded sequence ${ u_k }_{k=1}^{infty} subset X$, the sequence ${ Ku_k }_{k=1}^{infty}$ is precompact in $Y$; that is, there exists a subsequence ${ u_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ such that ${ Ku_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ converges in $Y$."
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Okay. Then the rescaling argument you gave above can be used to show that my definition is equivalent to Evans'.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This will follow pretty directly from the version of Ascoli-Arzela that you already know.
Let $D$ be the unit ball of $C^alpha(X, B_1)$. Your goal is to show that $E = kappa D$ is relatively compact, i.e. that the set $E = {kappa f : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $C(X, B_2)$ (here $N = B_2$). You want to verify the hypotheses of Ascoli-Arzela.
For (1), use the Hölder continuity. You should be able to show that for any $f in D$ and any $x,y in X$, we have $|(kappa f)(x) - (kappa f)(y)|_{B_2} = |K(f(x)) - K(f(y))|_{B_2} le |K| d(x,y)^alpha$, where $|K|$ is the operator norm of $K$ and $d$ is the metric on $X$. Equicontinuity should then follow easily.
For (2), fix $x in X$ and note that for any $f in D$, we have $|f(x)|_{B_1} le 1$. Now use the fact that $K$ is a compact operator to conclude that ${(kappa f)(x) : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $B_2$.
$endgroup$
This will follow pretty directly from the version of Ascoli-Arzela that you already know.
Let $D$ be the unit ball of $C^alpha(X, B_1)$. Your goal is to show that $E = kappa D$ is relatively compact, i.e. that the set $E = {kappa f : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $C(X, B_2)$ (here $N = B_2$). You want to verify the hypotheses of Ascoli-Arzela.
For (1), use the Hölder continuity. You should be able to show that for any $f in D$ and any $x,y in X$, we have $|(kappa f)(x) - (kappa f)(y)|_{B_2} = |K(f(x)) - K(f(y))|_{B_2} le |K| d(x,y)^alpha$, where $|K|$ is the operator norm of $K$ and $d$ is the metric on $X$. Equicontinuity should then follow easily.
For (2), fix $x in X$ and note that for any $f in D$, we have $|f(x)|_{B_1} le 1$. Now use the fact that $K$ is a compact operator to conclude that ${(kappa f)(x) : f in D}$ is relatively compact in $B_2$.
answered yesterday
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64.1k682174
64.1k682174
$begingroup$
I understood your hints, but I don't sure if I understand why you are considering $D$ as the unit ball of $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$. The idea is consider $D$ as a bounded set, which is contained in a closed ball $overline{B}(0, A) subset mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ for some $A > 0$. Since $f in D$, we must have $||f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq A$, then $||frac{1}{A} f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq 1$. Thus, we can suppose w.l.o.g. that $D = overline{B}(0,1)$, is this the reason why you assume $D$ the unit ball or the reason is more subtle?
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but, as I said in the OP, I never did Functional Analysis, I just want to be sure if I understood the argument.
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
For me, the definition of "$kappa : Y_1 to Y_2$ is a compact operator" is "the image of the unit ball of $Y_1$ under $kappa$ is a relatively compact set in $Y_2$". What's your definition?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
The same of Appendix $D.5$ of Evans' book: "let $X$ and $Y$ be real Banach spaces. A bounded linear operator $$K: X longrightarrow Y$$ is called compact provided for each bounded sequence ${ u_k }_{k=1}^{infty} subset X$, the sequence ${ Ku_k }_{k=1}^{infty}$ is precompact in $Y$; that is, there exists a subsequence ${ u_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ such that ${ Ku_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ converges in $Y$."
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Okay. Then the rescaling argument you gave above can be used to show that my definition is equivalent to Evans'.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I understood your hints, but I don't sure if I understand why you are considering $D$ as the unit ball of $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$. The idea is consider $D$ as a bounded set, which is contained in a closed ball $overline{B}(0, A) subset mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ for some $A > 0$. Since $f in D$, we must have $||f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq A$, then $||frac{1}{A} f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq 1$. Thus, we can suppose w.l.o.g. that $D = overline{B}(0,1)$, is this the reason why you assume $D$ the unit ball or the reason is more subtle?
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but, as I said in the OP, I never did Functional Analysis, I just want to be sure if I understood the argument.
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
For me, the definition of "$kappa : Y_1 to Y_2$ is a compact operator" is "the image of the unit ball of $Y_1$ under $kappa$ is a relatively compact set in $Y_2$". What's your definition?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
The same of Appendix $D.5$ of Evans' book: "let $X$ and $Y$ be real Banach spaces. A bounded linear operator $$K: X longrightarrow Y$$ is called compact provided for each bounded sequence ${ u_k }_{k=1}^{infty} subset X$, the sequence ${ Ku_k }_{k=1}^{infty}$ is precompact in $Y$; that is, there exists a subsequence ${ u_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ such that ${ Ku_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ converges in $Y$."
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Okay. Then the rescaling argument you gave above can be used to show that my definition is equivalent to Evans'.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
I understood your hints, but I don't sure if I understand why you are considering $D$ as the unit ball of $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$. The idea is consider $D$ as a bounded set, which is contained in a closed ball $overline{B}(0, A) subset mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ for some $A > 0$. Since $f in D$, we must have $||f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq A$, then $||frac{1}{A} f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq 1$. Thus, we can suppose w.l.o.g. that $D = overline{B}(0,1)$, is this the reason why you assume $D$ the unit ball or the reason is more subtle?
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
I understood your hints, but I don't sure if I understand why you are considering $D$ as the unit ball of $mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$. The idea is consider $D$ as a bounded set, which is contained in a closed ball $overline{B}(0, A) subset mathcal{C}^{alpha}(X,B_1)$ for some $A > 0$. Since $f in D$, we must have $||f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq A$, then $||frac{1}{A} f||_{C(X,B_2)} leq 1$. Thus, we can suppose w.l.o.g. that $D = overline{B}(0,1)$, is this the reason why you assume $D$ the unit ball or the reason is more subtle?
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but, as I said in the OP, I never did Functional Analysis, I just want to be sure if I understood the argument.
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but, as I said in the OP, I never did Functional Analysis, I just want to be sure if I understood the argument.
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
For me, the definition of "$kappa : Y_1 to Y_2$ is a compact operator" is "the image of the unit ball of $Y_1$ under $kappa$ is a relatively compact set in $Y_2$". What's your definition?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
For me, the definition of "$kappa : Y_1 to Y_2$ is a compact operator" is "the image of the unit ball of $Y_1$ under $kappa$ is a relatively compact set in $Y_2$". What's your definition?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
The same of Appendix $D.5$ of Evans' book: "let $X$ and $Y$ be real Banach spaces. A bounded linear operator $$K: X longrightarrow Y$$ is called compact provided for each bounded sequence ${ u_k }_{k=1}^{infty} subset X$, the sequence ${ Ku_k }_{k=1}^{infty}$ is precompact in $Y$; that is, there exists a subsequence ${ u_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ such that ${ Ku_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ converges in $Y$."
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
The same of Appendix $D.5$ of Evans' book: "let $X$ and $Y$ be real Banach spaces. A bounded linear operator $$K: X longrightarrow Y$$ is called compact provided for each bounded sequence ${ u_k }_{k=1}^{infty} subset X$, the sequence ${ Ku_k }_{k=1}^{infty}$ is precompact in $Y$; that is, there exists a subsequence ${ u_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ such that ${ Ku_{k_j} }_{j=1}^{infty}$ converges in $Y$."
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday
$begingroup$
Okay. Then the rescaling argument you gave above can be used to show that my definition is equivalent to Evans'.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
Okay. Then the rescaling argument you gave above can be used to show that my definition is equivalent to Evans'.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3138248%2fprove-that-the-following-map-is-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
The problem with your attempt is that the subsequence you choose depends on the point $x$. It is not immediate why there should be a subsequence working for all points simultaneously. Also, could you mention which version of Ascoli's theorem (if any) you already know.
$endgroup$
– MaoWao
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@MaoWao, I included the version of Ascoli's theorem that I have in mind.
$endgroup$
– George
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In your version of Ascoli-Arzela, what is $N$?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge, $N$ is a metric space, this version of AScoli-Arzela is for metric spaces
$endgroup$
– George
yesterday