All posts by Jean-Pierre Merx

Separability of a vector space and its dual

Recall that a topological space is considered separable when it contains a countable dense set. The following theorem establishes a significant connection between separability and dual spaces:

Theorem: If the dual X of a normed vector space X is separable, then so is the space X itself.

Proof outline: let fn be a countable dense set in X unit sphere S. For any nN one can find xn in X unit ball such that fn(xn)12. We claim that the countable set F=SpanQ(x0,x1,) is dense in X. If not, we would find xX¯F and according to the Hahn-Banach theorem, there would exist a linear functional fX such that f¯F=0 and f=1. But then for all nN, fnf|fn(xn)f(xn)|=|fn(xn)|12. A contradiction since fn is supposed to be dense in S.

We prove that the converse is not true, i.e., a dual space can be separable, while the space itself may not be.

Introducing some normed vector spaces

Given a closed interval KR and a set AR, we define the 4 following spaces. The first three are endowed with the supremum norm and the last with the 1 norm.

  • C(K,R), the space of continuous functions from K to R, is separable as the polynomial functions with coefficients in Q are dense and countable.
  • (A,R) is the space of real bounded functions defined on A with countable support.
  • c0(A,R)(A,R) is the subspace of elements of (A) going to 0 at .
  • 1(A,R) is the space of summable functions on A: uRA is in 1(A,R) iff aA|ux|<+.

We find the usual sequence spaces when A=N. It should be noted that c0(A,R) and 1(A,R) are separable iff A is countable (otherwise the subset {x1{a}(x), aA} is uncountable, and discrete), and that (A,R) is separable iff A is finite (otherwise the subset {0,1}A is uncountable, and discrete).

Continue reading Separability of a vector space and its dual

Determinacy of random variables

The question of the determinacy (or uniqueness) in the moment problem consists in finding whether the moments of a real-valued random variable determine uniquely its distribution. If we assume the random variable to be a.s. bounded, uniqueness is a consequence of Weierstrass approximation theorem.

Given the moments, the distribution need not be unique for unbounded random variables. Carleman’s condition states that for two positive random variables X,Y with the same finite moments for all orders, if n112nE(Xn)=+, then X and Y have the same distribution. In this article we describe random variables with different laws but sharing the same moments, on R+ and N.

Continuous case on R+

In the article a non-zero function orthogonal to all polynomials, we described a function f orthogonal to all polynomials in the sense that k0, +0xkf(x)dx=0.

This function was f(u)=sin(u14)eu14. This inspires us to define U and V with values in R+ by: {fU(u)=124e4ufV(u)=124e4u(1+sin(4u))

Both functions are positive. Since f is orthogonal to the constant map equal to one and +0fU=+0fV=1, they are indeed densities. One can verify that U and V have moments of all orders and E(Uk)=E(Vk) for all kN according to orthogonality relation (O) above.

Discrete case on N

In this section we define two random variables X and Y with values in N having the same moments. Let’s take an integer q2 and set for all nN: {P(X=qn)=eqqn1n!P(Y=qn)=eqqn(1n!+(1)n(q1)(q21)(qn1))

Both quantities are positive and for any k0, P(X=qn) and P(Y=qn)=On(1qkn). We are going to prove that for all k1, uk=+n=0(1)nqkn(q1)(q21)(qn1) is equal to 0.

Continue reading Determinacy of random variables

A semi-continuous function with a dense set of points of discontinuity

Let’s come back to Thomae’s function which is defined as:
f:|RRx0 if xRQpq1q if pq in lowest terms and q>0

We proved here that f right-sided and left-sided limits vanish at all points. Therefore lim supxaf(x)f(a) at every point a which proves that f is upper semi-continuous on R. However f is continuous at all aRQ and discontinuous at all aQ.

A prime ideal that is not a maximal ideal

Every maximal ideal is a prime ideal. The converse is true in a principal ideal domain – PID, i.e. every nonzero prime ideal is maximal in a PID, but this is not true in general. Let’s produce a counterexample.

R=Z[x] is a ring. R is not a PID as can be shown considering the ideal I generated by the set {2,x}. I cannot be generated by a single element p. If it was, p would divide 2, i.e. p=1 or p=2. We can’t have p=1 as it means R=I but 3I. We can’t have either p=2 as it implies the contradiction xI. The ideal J=(x) is a prime ideal as R/JZ is an integral domain. Since Z is not a field, J is not a maximal ideal.

Totally disconnected compact set with positive measure

Let’s build a totally disconnected compact set K[0,1] such that μ(K)>0 where μ denotes the Lebesgue measure.

In order to do so, let r1,r2, be an enumeration of the rationals. To each rational ri associate the open interval Ui=(ri2i2,ri+2i2). Then take V=i=1Ui and K=[0,1]Vc. Clearly K is bounded and closed, therefore compact. As Lebesgue measure is subadditive we have μ(V)i=1μ(Ui)i=12i1=1/2. This implies μ(K)=μ([0,1])μ([0,1]V)1/2. In a further article, we’ll build a totally disconnected compact set K of [0,1] with a predefined measure m[0,1).

Converse of fundamental theorem of calculus

The fundamental theorem of calculus asserts that for a continuous real-valued function f defined on a closed interval [a,b], the function F defined for all x[a,b] by
F(x)=xaf(t)dt is uniformly continuous on [a,b], differentiable on the open interval (a,b) and F(x)=f(x)
for all x(a,b).

The converse of fundamental theorem of calculus is not true as we see below.

Consider the function defined on the interval [0,1] by f(x)={2xsin(1/x)cos(1/x) for x00 for x=0 f is integrable as it is continuous on (0,1] and bounded on [0,1]. Then F(x)={x2sin(1/x) for x00 for x=0 F is differentiable on [0,1]. It is clear for x(0,1]. F is also differentiable at 0 as for x0 we have |F(x)F(0)x0|=|F(x)x||x|. Consequently F(0)=0.

However f is not continuous at 0 as it does not have a right limit at 0.

Four elements rings

A group with four elements is isomorphic to either the cyclic group Z4 or to the Klein four-group Z2×Z2. Those groups are commutative. Endowed with the usual additive and multiplicative operations, Z4 and Z2×Z2 are commutative rings.

Are all four elements rings also isomorphic to either Z4 or Z2×Z2? The answer is negative. Let’s provide two additional examples of commutative rings with four elements not isomorphic to Z4 or Z2×Z2.

The first one is the field F4. F4 is a commutative ring with four elements. It is not isomorphic to Z4 or Z2×Z2 as both of those rings have zero divisor. Indeed we have 22=0 in Z4 and (1,0)(0,1)=(0,0) in Z2×Z2.

A second one is the ring R of the matrices (x0yx) where x,yZ2. One can easily verify that R is a commutative subring of the ring M2(Z2). It is not isomorphic to Z4 as its characteristic is 2. This is not isomorphic to Z2×Z2 either as (0010) is a non-zero matrix solution of the equation X2=0. (0,0) is the only solution of that equation in Z2×Z2.

One can prove that the four rings mentioned above are the only commutative rings with four elements up to isomorphism.

Counterexamples around series (part 2)

We follow the article counterexamples around series (part 1) providing additional funny series examples.

If un converges and (un) is non-increasing then un=o(1/n)?

This is true. Let’s prove it.
The hypotheses imply that (un) converges to zero. Therefore un0 for all nN. As un converges we have limnnk=n/2uk=0. Hence for ϵ>0, one can find NN such that ϵnk=n/2uk12(nun)0 for all nN. Which concludes the proof.

un convergent is equivalent to u2n and u2n+1 convergent?

Is not true as we can see taking un=(1)nn. un converges according to the alternating series test. However for nN nk=1u2k=nk=112k=1/2nk=11k. Hence u2n diverges as the harmonic series diverges.

un absolutely convergent is equivalent to u2n and u2n+1 absolutely convergent?

This is true and the proof is left to the reader.

un is a positive convergent series then (nun) is bounded?

Is true. If not, there would be a subsequence (uϕ(n)) such that ϕ(n)uϕ(n)2. Which means uϕ(n)2ϕ(n) for all nN and implies that the sequence (un) is unbounded. In contradiction with the convergence of the series un.

If (un) is strictly positive with un=o(1/n) then (1)nun converges?

It does not hold as we can see with un={1nlnnn0[2]12nn1[2] Then for nN 2nk=1(1)kuknk=112kln2k2nk=112knk=112kln2k1. As 12kln2k diverges as can be proven using the integral test with the function x12xln2x, (1)nun also diverges.

Group homomorphism versus ring homomorphism

A ring homomorphism is a function between two rings which respects the structure. Let’s provide examples of functions between rings which respect the addition or the multiplication but not both.

An additive group homomorphism that is not a ring homomorphism

We consider the ring R[x] of real polynomials and the derivation D:R[x]R[x]PP D is an additive homomorphism as for all P,QR[x] we have D(P+Q)=D(P)+D(Q). However, D does not respect the multiplication as D(x2)=2x1=D(x)D(x). More generally, D satisfies the Leibniz rule D(PQ)=PD(Q)+QD(P).

A multiplication group homomorphism that is not a ring homomorphism

The function f:RRxx2 is a multiplicative group homomorphism of the group (R,). However f does not respect the addition.