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