3

Let $V$ be a Hilbert space and $V_i \subset V(i=1, \ldots, J)$ a number of closed subspaces satisfying $V=\sum_{i=1}^J V_i$, which, by a simple application of the Open Mapping Theorem, implies $$ \sup _{\|v\|=1} \inf _{\sum_i v_i=v} \sum_{i=1}^J\left\|v_i\right\|^2<\infty $$

I don't know how to use the open mapping theorem.

Edit: This claim is made in the paper The method of alternating projections and the method of subspace corrections in Hilbert space by Jinchao Xu and Ludmil Zikatanov. See here.

Kenny Wong
  • 32,192
Chandler
  • 445
  • 1
    Would you be so kind as to provide some context as to where your question comes from? I presume you're quoting a passage from a proof that you're reading? – Kenny Wong Apr 18 '23 at 08:38
  • 2
    Your question is a legitimate question. However, it may be useful to provide more context, such as: $1)$ where the problem came from/how it arose, $2)$ Stating what the Open Mapping Theorem is. $3)$ Stating any thoughts you have on the problem. Have you used the OMT on any other problems previously? – Adam Rubinson Apr 18 '23 at 08:38
  • It comes from the paper in page 577: THE METHOD OF ALTERNATING PROJECTIONS AND THE METHOD OF SUBSPACE CORRECTIONS IN HILBERT SPACE – Chandler Apr 18 '23 at 08:44

1 Answers1

4

What I would do is consider the linear map $$ f: V_1 \times \dots \times V_J \to V$$ given by $$ f(v_1, \dots, v_J) = v_1 + \dots + v_J.$$

Notice that:

  • The codomain of $f$ is complete since $V$ is a Hilbert space.
  • The domain of $f$ is also complete, since $V_1, \dots, V_J$ are closed subspaces of the Hilbert space $V$.
  • $f$ is surjective, since $V = V_1 + \dots + V_J$.
  • $f$ is clearly continuous.

So it is valid to apply the Open Mapping Theorem to $f$.

The Open Mapping Theorem tells us that there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that for every $v \in V$ with $\| v \| < \delta$, there exists a $(v_1, \dots, v_J) \in V_1 \times\dots \times V_J$ with $\|(v_1, \dots, v_J) \| < 1$ such that $f(v_1, \dots, v_J) = v$.

This is equivalent to saying that there exists a $c \in \mathbb C$ such that for every $v \in V$ with $\| v \| = 1$, there exists a $(v_1, \dots, v_J) \in V_1 \times \dots \times V_J$ with $\|(v_1, \dots, v_J) \| < c$ such that $f(v_1, \dots, v_J) = v$. (For example, take $c = 2\delta^{-1}$.)

But then, for every $v \in V$ with $\| v \| = 1$, $$ \inf_{\sum_{i = 1}^J v_i = v} \sum_{i = 1}^J \|v_i\|^2 < c^2.$$

Hence $$ \sup_{\| v \| = 1} \left( \inf_{\sum_{i = 1}^J v_i = v} \sum_{i = 1}^J \|v_i\|^2 \right) \leq c^2 < \infty.$$

Kenny Wong
  • 32,192
  • $\times$ feels more appropriate than $\oplus$? Or maybe it's different in the English-speaking world? $\oplus$ makes me think more of a direct sum (or direct product), while the $V_i$ aren't supposed to be in a direct sum. But I understand if $\oplus$ is also used in this case usually and I just didn't know. Anyway, quite a clean and neat answer! (+1). – Bruno B Apr 18 '23 at 10:03
  • @BrunoB I see what you mean! I had the same thought. I'm using $\oplus$ to denote an external direct sum. As you pointed out the $V_i$'s are not in an internal direct sum hence why my original notation is confusing. I'll change it. – Kenny Wong Apr 18 '23 at 10:06