Continuous linear transformation

In summary: If you don't know what a supremum is, it's just the smallest upper bound. That is, if S is a set of numbers, then it's supremum is a number M such that M \ge x for all x \in S, and if x < M, then there exists an y \in S such that y > x.Note that if you take S=|T(x)| when |x|<1, then the supremum is just ||T||.Now, I'm not sure, but the result that you are looking for is probably this:For any linear transformation we define the norm of it as ||T||=\sup_{|x|<1}|T(x)|. Your arguments
  • #1
Andy_ToK
43
0
T is a linear transformation from R^m->R^n, prove that T is continuous.

I have proved that there's always a positive real number C that |T(x)|<=C|x|. How shall I proceed then?
Thanks~
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
May I ask how you have shown that?
 
  • #3
x is an element of R^m
|T(x)|=|sum_i(xi*T(ei))|<=sum_i{xi(|T(ei)|)}
let A=max{|T(e1)|,|T(e2)|...|T(em)|)
then |T(x)|<=A*sum_i(xi)<A/sqrt(m)*sqrt(sum_i(xi^2))=A/sqrt(m)*|x| (AM<RMS)

sorry, i don't know how to use latex here:frown:
 
  • #4
1) You forgot an absolute value sign around xi in line 2:

|T(x)|=|sum_i(xi*T(ei))|<=sum_i{|xi|(|T(ei)|)}

2) How did you get

sum_i|xi|<[1/sqrt(m)]*sqrt(sum_i(xi^2)) ?

Surely this is not true. Take for instance the case when all but one of the x_i are non-vanishing. The inequality becomes

|xi|<[1/sqrt(m)]*|xi| <==> sqrt(m)<1You had good ideas in your attempt but I suggest working directly with the definition of continuity. Given e>0 and x0 , try to find a d>0 such that |x-x0|<d ==> |T(x)-T(x0)|<e.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Well, can you show that it is Lipschitz?
 
  • #6
quasar987 said:
1) You forgot an absolute value sign around xi in line 2:

|T(x)|=|sum_i(xi*T(ei))|<=sum_i{|xi|(|T(ei)|)}

2) How did you get

sum_i|xi|<[1/sqrt(m)]*sqrt(sum_i(xi^2)) ?

Surely this is not true. Take for instance the case when all but one of the x_i are non-vanishing. The inequality becomes

|xi|<[1/sqrt(m)]*|xi| <==> sqrt(m)<1


You had good ideas in your attempt but I suggest working directly with the definition of continuity. Given e>0 and x0 , try to find a d>0 such that |x-x0|<d ==> |T(x)-T(x0)|<e.
1.Thanks for pointing that out, it should be the absolute value.:smile:
2.sorry i made a mistake there, it should be
sum_i|xi|<sqrt(m)*sqrt(sum_i(xi^2)) by AM<RMS
 
  • #7
Here is the standard way of doing it:

For any linear transformation we define the norm of it as [itex]||T||=\sup_{|x|<1}|T(x)|[/itex]. Your arguments show that this norm always exists for any linear map.

Then we have [itex]|T(x-y)|\le||T|||x-y|[/itex]. Therefore [itex]T[/itex] is Lipschitz, hence uniformly continuous. If you don't know anything about Lipschitz and uniform continuity you can just let [itex]|x-y|<\epsilon/||T||[/itex] and we have our desired result.
 
  • #8
Andy_ToK said:
1.Thanks for pointing that out, it should be the absolute value.:smile:
2.sorry i made a mistake there, it should be
sum_i|xi|<sqrt(m)*sqrt(sum_i(xi^2)) by AM<RMS

Oh, ok. I did not know this inequality, but it is true as long as you change that < for a <=, because obviously for m=1, we have an equality. What does AM and RMS stand for?

What you've proven in showing |T(x)|<=C|x| is that T is Lipschitz continuous at 0. Usually, we say that a function f is Lipschitz at x0 if there exists numbers c and M such that |x-x0|<c ==> |f(x)-f(x0)| [itex]\leq[/itex] M|x-x0|. A function that is Lipschitz is necessarily continuous because given e>0, choose d=min{c,e/M}.

So, can you extend your result and show that T is Lipschitz everywhere?
 
Last edited:
  • #9
ZioX said:
Then we have [itex]|T(x-y)|\leq ||T|||x-y|[/itex].

Shouldn't there be a sqrt{m} also on the RHS as in Andy's AM<RMS?
 
  • #10
quasar987 said:
Oh, ok. I did not know this inequality, but it is true as long as you change that < for a <=, because obviously for m=1, we have an equality. What does AM and RMS stand for?
oops, it should be <=, thanks.
AM=arithmetic mean
RMS=root mean square AM<=RMS (the equality holds when |x1|=|x2|...=|xm|)
 
  • #11
Thanks quasar987 and ZioX
I forgot to use T(x)-T(y)=T(x-y) for the linear transformation...
let d=e/C then, |x-y|<d --> |T(x)-T(y)|=|T(x-y)<cd=e
 
  • #12
quasar987 said:
Shouldn't there be a sqrt{m} also on the RHS as in Andy's AM<RMS?

I'll explain the logic a bit.

Define [itex]||T||=\sup_{|x|<1}|T(x)|[/itex].

Now the previous argument shows that there exists a C such that [itex]|T(x)| \le C|x|[/itex].

Now, if we restrict [itex]|x| < 1[/itex] we get [itex]|T(x)| \le C|x| < C[/itex] so that |T(x)| has an upper bound, hence a supremum.

Now, for continuity, it just becomes a matter of verifying that [itex]0 \le |T(x)-T(y)|=|T(x-y)|<\epsilon[/itex] whenever [itex]0 \le |x-y|< \min\{\epsilon / ||T||,1\}[/itex].
 

FAQ: Continuous linear transformation

What is a continuous linear transformation?

A continuous linear transformation is a mathematical function that maps a vector space onto itself while preserving the operations of addition and scalar multiplication. In other words, the output of the transformation is still a vector in the same space as the input, and the transformation does not distort the vector space in any way.

How is continuity defined in a linear transformation?

In a continuous linear transformation, continuity is defined as the property that small changes in the input produce small changes in the output. This means that if the input vectors are close together, the corresponding output vectors will also be close together. In mathematical terms, this can be expressed as the limit of the transformation as the input approaches a particular value being equal to the transformation at that value.

What is the difference between a continuous and a discontinuous linear transformation?

The main difference between a continuous and a discontinuous linear transformation is that a continuous transformation preserves the structure of the vector space, while a discontinuous transformation does not. This means that a discontinuous transformation may distort the vectors or change their properties, while a continuous transformation will not.

Can a continuous linear transformation be represented by a matrix?

Yes, a continuous linear transformation can be represented by a matrix. This is because a matrix represents a linear transformation by mapping the standard basis vectors to the columns of the matrix. As long as the transformation is continuous, the resulting matrix will also be continuous.

What are some real-world applications of continuous linear transformations?

Continuous linear transformations have many real-world applications, including in physics, engineering, and computer graphics. For example, they are used to model the behavior of physical systems, such as oscillating springs or electrical circuits. In computer graphics, they are used to transform and manipulate images and 3D models. They are also used in data analysis and machine learning to find patterns and relationships in large datasets.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
625
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top