Skip to main content
Became Hot Network Question
Added a missing word to the title.
Link
Dean Miller
  • 9.5k
  • 3
  • 16
  • 47

Meaning of "translate the open unit ball multiplicatively" in proof of Proposition 2.5 in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry

Improved the presentation of the question and added some relevant tags.
Source Link
Dean Miller
  • 9.5k
  • 3
  • 16
  • 47

Proof Meaning of "translate the open ball multiplicatively" in proof of Proposition 2.5 in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry

For Proposition 2.5 of Chapter I in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry, it is stated

Let $E,F$$E$, $F$ be Banach spaces. Then the set of toplinear (that is, bounded linear) isomorphisms Lis($E,F$)${\rm Lis}(E,F)$ is open in $L(E,F)$ (the set of bounded linear maps).

And the proof is as follows:

If Lis($E,F$) is not empty, one is immediately reduced to proving that Laut($E$)${\rm Laut}(E)$ is open in L($E,E$)$L(E,E)$. We then remark that if $u \in L(E,E)$ and $|u| < 1$, then the series $1 + u + u^2 + ...$ converges \begin{equation} 1 + u + u^2 + \ldots \end{equation} converges. Given any toplinear automorphism $w$ of $E$, we can find an open neighborhood by translating the open unit ball multiplicatively from 1$1$ to $w$.

I am not able to follow this argument very well.

The reduction to the case of endomorphisms and automorphisms is believable enough, but after that, I cannot even tell how the following statements are related to each other, unfortunately.

It seems to me that they are indicating that for a bounded linear map $u$ of operator norm less than 1, that the operator $(1-u)^{-1} = \sum_{i \geq 0} u^i$ is well defined.

However, I have never heard the phrase "translate the open unit ball multiplicatively" before, and it is unclear to me what is meant.

Proof of Proposition 2.5 in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry

For Proposition 2.5 in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry, it is stated

Let $E,F$ be Banach spaces. Then the set of toplinear (that is, bounded linear) isomorphisms Lis($E,F$) is open in $L(E,F)$ (the set of bounded linear maps)

And the proof is as follows:

If Lis($E,F$) is not empty, one is immediately reduced to proving that Laut($E$) is open in L($E,E$). We then remark that if $u \in L(E,E)$ and $|u| < 1$, then the series $1 + u + u^2 + ...$ converges. Given any toplinear automorphism $w$ of $E$, we can find an open neighborhood by translating the open unit ball multiplicatively from 1 to $w$.

I am not able to follow this argument very well.

The reduction to the case of endomorphisms and automorphisms is believable enough, but after that, I cannot even tell how the following statements are related to each other, unfortunately.

It seems to me that they are indicating that for a bounded linear map $u$ of operator norm less than 1, that the operator $(1-u)^{-1} = \sum_{i \geq 0} u^i$ is well defined.

However, I have never heard the phrase "translate the open unit ball multiplicatively" before, and it is unclear to me what is meant.

Meaning of "translate the open ball multiplicatively" in proof of Proposition 2.5 in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry

For Proposition 2.5 of Chapter I in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry, it is stated

Let $E$, $F$ be Banach spaces. Then the set of toplinear (that is, bounded linear) isomorphisms ${\rm Lis}(E,F)$ is open in $L(E,F)$ (the set of bounded linear maps).

And the proof is as follows:

If Lis($E,F$) is not empty, one is immediately reduced to proving that ${\rm Laut}(E)$ is open in $L(E,E)$. We then remark that if $u \in L(E,E)$ and $|u| < 1$, then the series \begin{equation} 1 + u + u^2 + \ldots \end{equation} converges. Given any toplinear automorphism $w$ of $E$, we can find an open neighborhood by translating the open unit ball multiplicatively from $1$ to $w$.

I am not able to follow this argument very well.

The reduction to the case of endomorphisms and automorphisms is believable enough, but after that, I cannot even tell how the following statements are related to each other, unfortunately.

It seems to me that they are indicating that for a bounded linear map $u$ of operator norm less than 1, that the operator $(1-u)^{-1} = \sum_{i \geq 0} u^i$ is well defined.

However, I have never heard the phrase "translate the open unit ball multiplicatively" before, and it is unclear to me what is meant.

Source Link

Proof of Proposition 2.5 in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry

For Proposition 2.5 in Lang's Fundamentals of Differential Geometry, it is stated

Let $E,F$ be Banach spaces. Then the set of toplinear (that is, bounded linear) isomorphisms Lis($E,F$) is open in $L(E,F)$ (the set of bounded linear maps)

And the proof is as follows:

If Lis($E,F$) is not empty, one is immediately reduced to proving that Laut($E$) is open in L($E,E$). We then remark that if $u \in L(E,E)$ and $|u| < 1$, then the series $1 + u + u^2 + ...$ converges. Given any toplinear automorphism $w$ of $E$, we can find an open neighborhood by translating the open unit ball multiplicatively from 1 to $w$.

I am not able to follow this argument very well.

The reduction to the case of endomorphisms and automorphisms is believable enough, but after that, I cannot even tell how the following statements are related to each other, unfortunately.

It seems to me that they are indicating that for a bounded linear map $u$ of operator norm less than 1, that the operator $(1-u)^{-1} = \sum_{i \geq 0} u^i$ is well defined.

However, I have never heard the phrase "translate the open unit ball multiplicatively" before, and it is unclear to me what is meant.