8

Using the closest point property of Hilbert spaces we can prove that for any closed subspace $A \subset H$ we can decompose H as $$H = A \oplus A^{\bot}.$$

Is this property characterizing Hilbert spaces? Namely, if we have an inner product space H such that for every closed subspace $A \subset H$ we can write $$H = A \oplus A^{\bot}$$ then space is Hilbert? I've seen some specific cases, where the space was not complete and $H \neq A \oplus A^{\bot}$ for some closed $A$; for example for $H = c_{00}$ (space of sequences with finite support) with inner product inherited from $\ell^2$ and $A = \{ x \in c_{00}: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{x_n}{n}=0\}$ so I wonder if we can generalize example like this and always find a closed subspace $A$ of an incomplete inner product space $H$, such that $H \neq A \oplus A^{\bot}$? Or if there is a different way of approaching this question perhaps.

btfm
  • 177
  • Does this answer your question? https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/682936/if-every-closed-subspace-of-a-banach-space-has-a-closed-orthogonal-complement-t – Evangelopoulos Foivos Nov 25 '20 at 23:43
  • I was thinking about Lindestrauss & Tzafriri (1971) theorem but unfortunately I don't see how this helps to answer my question, since we have an assumption there that space is Banach, and here I want to just assume that space is an inner product space where every closed subspace is complemented, so it's (I believe) two different questions. – btfm Nov 26 '20 at 00:16
  • @EvangelopoulosF, please note that the question you suggested deals with a different problem. The hypothesis assumed there that the space is complete is not granted here. – Ruy Nov 26 '20 at 01:26
  • I hadn't noticed, thanks for pointing that out – Evangelopoulos Foivos Nov 26 '20 at 14:05

1 Answers1

7

In fact, $H$ is complete iff for every closed subspace $K\subseteq H$, one has that $H=K\oplus K^\perp$. Actually, we will prove something a bit stronger:

Theorem. Let $H$ be a separable, infinite dimensional inner-product space such that $K^\perp\neq \{0\}$, for every proper closed subspace $K\subseteq H$. Then $H$ is complete.

Proof. Find an orthonormal basis $\{e_n\}_n$ for $H$ (the existence of bases relies only on Graham-Schmidt and hence works on any inner-product space).

As usual we may then use $\{e_n\}_n$ to view $H$ as a subspace of $\ell ^2$ containing the compactly supported sequences.

If $H$ is not complete, then $H\subsetneq \ell ^2$, so we may pick a vector $\xi \in \ell ^2\setminus H$. It is then obvious that $$ K:= H\cap \{\xi \}^\perp $$ is a proper closed subspace of $H$, and I claim that the orthogonal complement of $K$ within $H$ coincides with $\{0\}$. In other words, we claim that $$ K^\perp\cap H=\{0\}. $$

To see this, suppose by contradiction that $\eta $ is a nonzero vector in $K^\perp\cap H$.

Fix any $m$ such that $\langle e_m, \xi \rangle \not=0$, and for every $n$ consider the vector $$ u_n = e_n - \frac{\langle e_n, \xi \rangle }{\langle e_m, \xi \rangle }e_m. $$ Observing that $\langle u_n, \xi \rangle =0$, we see that $u_n\in K$, so $$ 0 = \langle u_n, \eta \rangle = \langle e_n, \eta \rangle - \frac{\langle e_n, \xi \rangle }{\langle e_m, \xi \rangle }\langle e_m, \eta \rangle , $$ hence $$ \langle e_n, \eta \rangle = \frac{\langle e_n, \xi \rangle }{\langle e_m, \xi \rangle }\langle e_m, \eta \rangle = \langle e_n, \xi \rangle \frac{\langle e_m, \eta \rangle }{\langle e_m, \xi \rangle }. $$ Since $m$ is fixed we see that the coefficients of $\eta $ and $\xi $ are proportional, meaning that also $\eta $ and $\xi $ themselves are proportional, but this is a contradiction because $\eta $ lies in $H$ and $\xi $ does not.

anyon
  • 369
Ruy
  • 19,160
  • 1
  • 15
  • 37
  • 2
    The assumption of separability is unnecessary. Given any Cauchy sequence in $H$, you can simply restrict attention to the closed span of the terms of the sequence, which is separable. Alternatively, using the existence of orthogonal decompositions, you can find an orthonormal basis even without assuming separability. – Eric Wofsey Nov 26 '20 at 01:00
  • You are correct @Eric. It's just my bad habbit of always ignoring non-separable Hilbert spaces :-) – Ruy Nov 26 '20 at 01:02
  • @Eric, This is surely not the right place but I've been puzzling about whether or not a non separable inner-product space always has an o.n. basis and I think I cannot decide. – Ruy Nov 26 '20 at 22:25
  • See https://math.stackexchange.com/a/201149/86856 for a counterexample. (The counterexample I described in my now-deleted comments was wrong.) – Eric Wofsey Nov 27 '20 at 00:07
  • @EricWofsey, Thanks for your comments and the link. In fact I was about to post this as a question when I say your last comment. Also, apologies for my joke above: non-separable spaces are a lot of fun too! – Ruy Nov 27 '20 at 00:14