2

My professor said there is an error in proposition 2.10 that he wants me to find. I have been looking at it for a few hours and I still cannot find it. Proposition 2.10 part 1, Proposition 2.10 part 2

AvidLearner
  • 43
  • An error in the proposition or in its proof? And what book is this from? – darij grinberg Sep 09 '19 at 02:11
  • Related: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/218046/relations-between-p-norms (gives a proof of at least one of the bounds). – darij grinberg Sep 09 '19 at 02:11
  • 1
    Ah, of course. The $\dfrac{1}{p}+\dfrac{1}{q} = 1$ condition is bull. – darij grinberg Sep 09 '19 at 02:13
  • Is it in the equation right before it says “Taking the $p^{th}$ root”, where on the very right it has $||x||_q^{p/q}$? It seems like that should be $||x||_q^{p}$ – Joe Sep 09 '19 at 02:17
  • Darij, my professor didn’t not specify whether it is the statement or the proof. To quote him “read the theorem statement and proof of Proposition 2.10 on page 35. Find the ‘glaring error’. This is called numerical linear algebra by Holger Wendland.( isbn is 978-1-316-60117-4) – AvidLearner Sep 09 '19 at 02:37
  • Also can you explain why 1/p +1/q=1 is “bull”? Linear algebra has always been difficult for me to understand. – AvidLearner Sep 09 '19 at 02:38
  • We appear to be in the same course; I am also very confused as to what's wrong with the proposition. – Carah Sep 12 '19 at 19:28
  • The condition is bull because it is never used and because it limits the proposition to a point where it becomes useless. I suspect the author copypasted a different proposition and forgot to delete this condition. – darij grinberg Sep 17 '19 at 17:54

0 Answers0