All posts by Jean-Pierre Merx

Two algebraically complemented subspaces that are not topologically complemented

We give here an example of a two complemented subspaces \(A\) and \(B\) that are not topologically complemented.

For this, we consider a vector space of infinite dimension equipped with an inner product. We also suppose that \(E\) is separable. Hence, \(E\) has an orthonormal basis \((e_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}\).

Let \(a_n=e_{2n}\) and \(b_n=e_{2n}+\frac{1}{2n+1} e_{2n+1}\). We denote \(A\) and \(B\) the closures of the linear subspaces generated by the vectors \((a_n)\) and \((b_n)\) respectively. We consider \(F=A+B\) and prove that \(A\) and \(B\) are complemented subspaces in \(F\), but not topologically complemented. Continue reading Two algebraically complemented subspaces that are not topologically complemented →

Counterexamples on function limits (part 1)

Let \(f\) and \(g\) be two real functions and \(a \in \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}\). We provide here examples and counterexamples regarding the limits of \(f\) and \(g\).

If \(f\) has a limit as \(x\) tends to \(a\) then \(\vert f \vert\) also?

This is true. It is a consequence of the reverse triangle inequality \[\left\vert \vert f(x) \vert – \vert l \vert \right\vert \le \vert f(x) – l \vert\] Hence if \(\displaystyle \lim\limits_{x \to a} f(x) = l\), \(\displaystyle \lim\limits_{x \to a} \vert f(x) \vert = \vert l \vert\)

Is the converse of previous statement also true?

It is not. Consider the function defined by: \[\begin{array}{l|rcl}
f : & \mathbb R & \longrightarrow & \mathbb R \\
& \frac{1}{n} & \longmapsto & -1 \text{ for } n \ge 1 \text{ integer} \\
& x & \longmapsto & 1 \text{ otherwise} \end{array}\] \(\vert f \vert\) is the constant function equal to \(1\), hence \(\vert f \vert\) has \(1\) for limit as \(x\) tends to zero. However \(\lim\limits_{x \to 0} f(x)\) doesn’t exist. Continue reading Counterexamples on function limits (part 1) →

The skew field of Hamilton’s quaternions

We give here an example of a division ring which is not commutative. According to Wedderburn theorem every finite division ring is commutative. So we must turn to infinite division rings to find a non-commutative one, i.e. a skew field.

Let’s introduce the skew field of the Hamilton’s quaternions \[\mathbb H = \left\{\begin{pmatrix}
u & -\overline{v} \\
v & \overline{u}
\end{pmatrix} \ | \ u,v \in \mathbb C\right\}\] Continue reading The skew field of Hamilton’s quaternions →

A homeomorphism of the unit ball having no fixed point

Let’s recall Brouwer fixed-point theorem.

Theorem (Brouwer): Every continuous function from a convex compact subset \(K\) of a Euclidean space to \(K\) itself has a fixed point.

We here describe an example of a homeomorphism of the unit ball of a Hilbert space having no fixed point. Let \(E\) be a separable Hilbert space with \((e_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}\) as a Hilbert basis. \(B\) and \(S\) are respectively \(E\) closed unit ball and unit sphere.

There is a unique linear map \(u : E \to E\) for which \(u(e_n)=e_{n+1}\) for all \(n \in \mathbb{Z}\). For \(x = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \xi_n e_n \in E\) we have \(u(x)= \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \xi_n e_{n+1}\). \(u\) is isometric as \[\Vert u(x) \Vert^2 = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \vert \xi_n \vert^2 = \Vert x \Vert^2\] hence one-to-one. \(u\) is also onto as for \(x = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \xi_n e_n \in E\), \(\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \xi_n e_{n-1} \in E\) is an inverse image of \(x\). Finally \(u\) is an homeomorphism. Continue reading A homeomorphism of the unit ball having no fixed point →

Counterexamples around differentiation of sequences of functions

We consider here sequences of real functions defined on a closed interval. Following theorem is the main one regarding the differentiation of the limit.

Theorem: Suppose \((f_n)\) is a sequence of functions, differentiable on \([a,b]\) and such that \((f_n(x_0))\) converges for some point \(x_0 \in [a,b]\). If \((f_n^\prime)\) converges uniformly on \([a,b]\), then \((f_n)\) converges uniformly on \([a,b]\) to a function \(f\) and for all \(x \in [a,b]\) \[f^\prime(x)=\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} f_n^\prime(x)\] What happens if we drop some hypothesis of the theorem? Continue reading Counterexamples around differentiation of sequences of functions →

An infinite group whose proper subgroups are all finite

We study some properties of the Prüfer \(p\)-group \(\mathbb{Z}_{p^\infty}\) for a prime number \(p\). The Prüfer \(p\)-group may be identified with the subgroup of the circle group, consisting of all \(p^n\)-th roots of unity as \(n\) ranges over all non-negative integers:
\[\mathbb{Z}_{p^\infty}=\bigcup_{k=0}^\infty \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} \text{ where } \mathbb{Z}_{p^k}= \{e^{\frac{2 i \pi m}{p^k}} \ | \ 0 \le m \le p^k-1\}\]

\(\mathbb{Z}_{p^\infty}\) is a group

First, let’s notice that for \(0 \le m \le n\) integers we have \(\mathbb{Z}_{p^m} \subseteq \mathbb{Z}_{p^n}\) as \(p^m | p^n\). Also for \(m \ge 0\) \(\mathbb{Z}_{p^m}\) is a subgroup of the circle group. We also notice that all elements of \(\mathbb{Z}_{p^\infty}\) have finite orders which are powers of \(p\). Continue reading An infinite group whose proper subgroups are all finite →

Counterexample around Arzela-Ascoli theorem

Let’s recall Arzelà–Ascoli theorem:

Suppose that \(F\) is a Banach space and \(E\) a compact metric space. A subset \(\mathcal{H}\) of the Banach space \(\mathcal{C}_F(E)\) is relatively compact in the topology induced by the uniform norm if and only if it is equicontinuous and and for all \(x \in E\), the set \(\mathcal{H}(x)=\{f(x) \ | \ f \in \mathcal{H}\}\) is relatively compact.

We look here at what happens if we drop the requirement on space \(E\) to be compact and provide a counterexample where the conclusion of Arzelà–Ascoli theorem doesn’t hold anymore.

We take for \(E\) the real interval \([0,+\infty)\) and for all \(n \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}\) the real function
\[f_n(t)= \sin \sqrt{t+4 n^2 \pi^2}\] We prove that \((f_n)\) is equicontinuous, converges pointwise to \(0\) but is not relatively compact.

According to the mean value theorem, for all \(x,y \in \mathbb{R}\)
\[\vert \sin x – \sin y \vert \le \vert x – y \vert\] Hence for \(n \ge 1\) and \(x,y \in [0,+\infty)\)
\begin{align*}
\vert f_n(x)-f_n(y) \vert &\le \vert \sqrt{x+4 n^2 \pi^2} -\sqrt{y+4 n^2 \pi^2} \vert \\
&= \frac{\vert x – y \vert}{\sqrt{x+4 n^2 \pi^2} +\sqrt{y+4 n^2 \pi^2}} \\
&\le \frac{\vert x – y \vert}{4 \pi}
\end{align*} using multiplication by the conjugate.

Which enables to prove that \((f_n)\) is equicontinuous.

We also have for \(n \ge 1\) and \(x \in [0,+\infty)\)
\begin{align*}
\vert f_n(x) \vert &= \vert f_n(x) – f_n(0) \vert \le \vert \sqrt{x+4 n^2 \pi^2} -\sqrt{4 n^2 \pi^2} \vert \\
&= \frac{\vert x \vert}{\sqrt{x+4 n^2 \pi^2} +\sqrt{4 n^2 \pi^2}} \\
&\le \frac{\vert x \vert}{4 n \pi}
\end{align*}

Hence \((f_n)\) converges pointwise to \(0\) and for \(t \in [0,+\infty), \mathcal{H}(t)=\{f_n(t) \ | \ n \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}\}\) is relatively compact

Finally we prove that \(\mathcal{H}=\{f_n \ | \ n \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}\}\) is not relatively compact. While \((f_n)\) converges pointwise to \(0\), \((f_n)\) does not converge uniformly to \(f=0\). Actually for \(n \ge 1\) and \(t_n=\frac{\pi^2}{4} + 2n \pi^2\) we have
\[f_n(t_n)= \sin \sqrt{\frac{\pi^2}{4} + 2n \pi^2 +4 n^2 \pi^2}=\sin \sqrt{\left(\frac{\pi}{2} + 2 n \pi\right)^2}=1\] Consequently for all \(n \ge 1\) \(\Vert f_n – f \Vert_\infty \ge 1\). If \(\mathcal{H}\) was relatively compact, \((f_n)\) would have a convergent subsequence with \(f=0\) for limit. And that cannot be as for all \(n \ge 1\) \(\Vert f_n – f \Vert_\infty \ge 1\).

Pointwise convergence and properties of the limit (part 1)

We look here at the continuity of a sequence of functions that converges pointwise and give some counterexamples of what happens versus uniform convergence.

Recalling the definition of pointwise convergence

We consider here real functions defined on a closed interval \([a,b]\). A sequence of functions \((f_n)\) defined on \([a,b]\) converges pointwise to the function \(f\) if and only if for all \(x \in [a,b]\) \(\displaystyle \lim\limits_{n \to +\infty} f_n(x) = f(x)\). Pointwise convergence is weaker than uniform convergence.

Pointwise convergence does not, in general, preserve continuity

Suppose that \(f_n \ : \ [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}\) is defined by \(f_n(x)=x^n\). For \(0 \le x <1\) then \(\displaystyle \lim\limits_{n \to +\infty} x^n = 0\), while if \(x = 1\) then \(\displaystyle \lim\limits_{n \to +\infty} x^n = 1\). Hence the sequence \(f_n\) converges to the function equal to \(0\) for \(0 \le x < 1\) and to \(1\) for \(x=1\). Although each \(f_n\) is a continuous function of \([0,1]\), their pointwise limit is not. \(f\) is discontinuous at \(1\). We notice that \((f_n)\) doesn't converge uniformly to \(f\) as for all \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\displaystyle \sup\limits_{x \in [0,1]} \vert f_n(x) - f(x) \vert = 1\). That's reassuring as uniform convergence of a sequence of continuous functions implies that the limit is continuous! Continue reading Pointwise convergence and properties of the limit (part 1) →

The set of all commutators in a group need not be a subgroup

I here provide a simple example of a group whose set of commutators is not a subgroup. The counterexample is due to P.J. Cassidy (1979).

Description of the group \(G\)

Let \(k[x,y]\) denote the ring of all polynomials in two variables over a field \(k\), and let \(k[x]\) and \(k[y]\) denote the subrings of all polynomials in \(x\) and in \(y\) respectively. \(G\) is the set of all upper unitriangular matrices of the form
\[A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & f(x) & h(x,y) \\
0 & 1 & g(y) \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)\] where \(f(x) \in k[x]\), \(g(y) \in k[y]\), and \(h(x,y) \in k[x,y]\). The matrix \(A\) will also be denoted \((f,g,h)\).
Let’s verify that \(G\) is a group. The products of two elements \((f,g,h)\) and \((f^\prime,g^\prime,h^\prime)\) is
\[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & f(x) & h(x,y) \\
0 & 1 & g(y) \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & f^\prime(x) & h^\prime(x,y) \\
0 & 1 & g^\prime(y) \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)\]
\[=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & f(x)+f^\prime(x) & h(x,y)+h^\prime(x,y)+f(x)g^\prime(y) \\
0 & 1 & g(y)+g^\prime(y) \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)\] which is an element of \(G\). We also have:
\[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & f(x) & h(x,y) \\
0 & 1 & g(y) \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)^{-1} =
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & -f(x) & f(x)g(y) – h(x,y) \\
0 & 1 & -g(y) \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)\] proving that the inverse of an element of \(G\) is also an element of \(G\). Continue reading The set of all commutators in a group need not be a subgroup →

A topological vector space with no non trivial continuous linear form

We consider here the \(L^p\)- spaces of real functions defined on \([0,1]\) for which the \(p\)-th power of the absolute value is Lebesgue integrable. We focus on the case \(0 < p < 1\). We'll prove that those \(L^p\)-spaces are topological vector spaces on which there exists no continuous non-trivial linear forms (i.e. not vanishing identically). Continue reading A topological vector space with no non trivial continuous linear form →