§ Reisez Lemma
- Let M be a closed proper subspace of a normed linear space X. Then for all 0<α<1, there exists a p∈X (dependent on α), such that d(M,p)≥α. That is, ∀m∈M,d(m,p)≥α.
- This is easy to establish for say R2. pick a unit orthogonal vector, it will be at least 1 unit apart (or more) by pythogoras.
- This lemma provides a convenient substitute for orthogonality.
§ Proof via Hahn Banach
- Hahn banach is also a substitute for orthogonality.
- Pick a point zinM. Thus, d(z,M)>0. Note that d(−,M) is:
- (a) a sublinear function on X.
- (b) vanishes on M.
- (c) equals the projection onto Rz≃R on M+Rz.
- By Hahn Banach, the portion of it that is linear extends to a linear functional on all of M+Rz, and is dominated above by d(−,M).
- Now, normalize the bounded linear functional so obtained to get a functional f such that ∣f∣=1. Note that noramalization does not change the fact that f(M)=0.
- Next, we build an "approximate normer" z′. This is an element z′ of unit norm such that ∣f(z′)∣∼∣f∣. Such an element exists by definition of norm: ∣∣f∣∣=sup∣∣x∣∣=1∣f(x)∣. See that since ∣z′∣=1, we must surely have that ∣f(z)∣≤∣∣f∣∣, thus ∣f(z′)≤1. We claim that ∣f(z′)∣=1−ϵ. (This is clear by clear and distinct perception since f "behaves differently" along Y). This must happen, for if not, then f(z′)=1 for all ∣z′∣=1. This is patently untrue since f(Y)=0, thus the unit vector along Y must vanish at the very least.
- Now, consider f(z′−m)=f(z′)−f(m)=(1−ϵ)−0=1−ϵ.
- Next, estimate ∣f(z′−m)∣=∣1−ϵ∣=1−ϵ.
- This gives 1−ϵ=∣f(z′−m)∣≥∣f∣∣z′−m∣=∣z′−m∣.
- The first inequality follows from the defn of norm ∣f∣=supk∣f(k)∣/∣k∣, and thus ∣f∣<∣f(k)∣/∣k∣, or ∣f(k)∣>∣f∣∣k∣.
- The second inequality follows from the fact that ∣f∣=1.
- Reference
§ What about α>1?
- α>1 does not even hold in R2. If I pick α=5, there is no unit vector that is 5 units away from the x-axis. A vector is at most 1 unit away from the x axis.
§ What about α=1?
- Apparently, this case holds for any reflexive space (double dual equals original space).
- To show counterexample, we need a non-reflexive space. consider l∞, space of sequences under max norm.
- Alternatively, pick C[0,1] under max norm.
- We begin by picking a subspace X≡{f∈C[0,1]:f(0)=0}. So f is continuous and f(0)=0.
- Let M be the subspace of X such that ∫01f(x)dx=0.
- We want to show that there exists no function p∈X such that (a) ∣∣p∣∣=1, (that is, supx∈[0,1]p(x)=1 and (b) d(p,m)≥1 for all m∈M.
§ Pedestrian proof when α=1.
- If d(p,m)≥1, then we must have d(p,0)≥1. This means that ∫01(p(x)−0)≥1, or that ∫01p(x)≥1.
- Intuitively, since p∈X, we know that p(0)=0, and since p is continuous, it must "spend some time" around 0, thereby losing some of the integral. Furthermore, since we know that ∣∣p∣∣=1, the maximum integral any such function can attain is 1.
- Since p is continuous and p(0)=0 (as p∈X), pick ϵ=0.5. Then there exists a δsuch that for all 0≤x<δ, we have that p(x)<ϵ=0.5. Thus, we can upper bound the integral of p(x) over [0,1] by δ×0.5+(1−δ)×1. Ie, we surround p by two rectangles, one of height 0.5, one of height 1, since we have the bounds. Since δ>0, we can see that ∫01p(x)dx<1 from the above estimate.
- Thus, this means that d(p,m)<1, thereby violating the claim that we can find such a p such that d(0,p)≥1. Hence proved!
§ Slightly more sophisticated proof when α=1.
- The same setup. We consider the integral operator F:X→R, defined as F(f)≡∫01f(x)dx.
- We note that M=ker(f).
- We note that ∣∣F∣∣≥1. (In fact, ∣∣F∣∣=1, since the function is maximized by being evaluated on one(x)=1 which lies on the unit sphere).
- We note that d(f,M)=∣F(f)∣/∣∣F∣∣. That is, the distance of a point to the kernel of an operator Fis the norm of F(x) rescaled by the norm of F.
- We need an estimate on ∣F(f)∣. By the above argument, we know that ∣F(f)∣<1 by continuity of f, f(0)=0, and that f(x)<1 for all x (as ∣∣f∣∣=1).
- Combine the two estimates to see tha d(f,M)=(<1)/(>1), which is indeed less than 1. Done.