2 definitions and a theorem relating them

In summary, two norms p and q on a vector space E are equivalent if they induce the same topology on E, meaning that they assign the same neighborhood basis to the zero vector. This is equivalent to the condition that there exist constants c and C such that c p(x) \leq q(x) \leq C p(x), for all x \in E. The proof of this theorem involves showing that if p and q are equivalent, then they induce the same topology, and vice versa.
  • #1
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
13,368
3,525

Homework Statement



Let E be a vector space and p,q 2 norms on it. By definition p,q induce the same topology on E, iff they assign the same neighborhood basis to the 0 vector. *QUESTION: What does the bolded part mean ? Does this mean that, if whatever A included in the system (=basis?) induced by p, A is included in a certain B in the system induced by q and viceversa, i.e. any B in the system induced by q is included in a certain A induced by p ? If so, then see my arguments below.

The 2nd definition would be:

E a vector space and p, q norms on it. p, q are said to be equivalent iff there exist c, C>0 such as

[tex] c p(x) \leq q(x) \leq C p(x), ~\forall x \in E [/tex]

The theorem would be the equivalence of the 2 definitions, namely

Theorem: p,q are equivalent iff they induce the same topology on E.

The problem would be to prove the theorem.

The Attempt at a Solution



Assume p, q equivalent. Then if [itex]\epsilon >0 [/itex], [itex] \{ x\in E, p(x) \leq \epsilon/c \}[/itex] is a n-hood system of 0 wrt p. Let A be one of the n-hoods in this system. Then [itex] A\subseteq \{x\in E, q(x) \leq\epsilon \} [/itex] ?? That would mean that [itex] \{x\in E, q(x) \leq\epsilon \} [/itex] is also a n-hood system of 0 induced by q. Using now the 2nd inequality would mean

Let [itex] \epsilon>0 [/itex]. Then [itex] \{x\in E, q(x)\leq \epsilon/C \} is a n-hood system of 0 induced by q and let B be a n-hood from it. Does it mean (using the 2nd inequality in the definition of equivalence) that:

[tex] B\subseteq \{x\in E, p(x)\leq \epsilon\}[/tex] ??

If so, then the 2 systems of n-hoods would be the same (??) so that p,q induce the same topology.

This would be half the proof. How's the other half ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
To prove the other half of the theorem, assume that p, q induce the same topology on E. That would mean that the systems of n-hoods induced by p and q are the same. Let \epsilon>0. Then, for each n-hood A in the system induced by p, A\subseteq \{x\in E, q(x)\leq\epsilon \}. This means that c p(x) \leq q(x)\leq \epsilon, ~\forall x \in A. Taking the supremum over all x in A implies that c p(x) \leq q(x)\leq \epsilon, ~\forall x \in E. By taking supremum over all \epsilon>0, we get the desired result that there exist c, C>0 such that c p(x) \leq q(x) \leq C p(x), \forall x \in E.

Thus, the theorem is proved.
 

FAQ: 2 definitions and a theorem relating them

What is the definition of a theorem?

A theorem is a statement that has been proven to be true using logical reasoning and previously established definitions, axioms, and theorems.

What is the difference between a theorem and a definition?

A definition is a statement that assigns a specific meaning to a term or concept, while a theorem is a statement that proves a relationship or property between terms or concepts.

How are definitions and theorems related?

Definitions and theorems are closely related in that the definitions of terms and concepts are used to prove theorems about them. Theorems often rely on previously established definitions to make logical connections and prove relationships.

Can a theorem be proven using only definitions?

No, a theorem must also rely on previously established theorems and axioms in addition to definitions. Definitions alone cannot prove a theorem, but they are an essential component in the logical reasoning process.

What is an example of a famous theorem and its corresponding definition?

The Pythagorean Theorem is a well-known example of a theorem that relates the lengths of the sides of a right triangle. Its corresponding definition would be the definition of a right triangle, which states that a triangle with one angle measuring 90 degrees is considered a right triangle.

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
713
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
979
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top