Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 24, 2022 at 13:34 comment added Jochen Wengenroth 9 years ago I probably meant by $\otimes_i$ the inductive tensor product of Grothendieck which differs for the injective tensor product $\otimes_\varepsilon$.
Apr 23, 2022 at 20:58 comment added Z. M @JochenWengenroth Sorry for my confusion about your notations. What is $\otimes_i$? I guess that $\otimes_\epsilon$ is with $\epsilon$-topology, and $\otimes_\pi$ is with $\pi$-topology (in Treves' terms)?
Nov 12, 2020 at 18:28 comment added user126256 I know this question is super old, but: Jochen's comment and Peter's answer seem to contradict each other, no? Jochen says that the projective tensor product of compactly supported functions on $\mathbb{R}$ does not equal the compactly supported functions on the product space, but the last sentence in Peter's answer appears to say that it does. The cited Treves page seems not to comment on this situation (he only considers the product of the compactly supported function on compact spaces). If one of you sees this, could you clarify?
Mar 21, 2013 at 12:18 comment added Jochen Wengenroth Just a little remark: That $\otimes_i$ coincides with $\otimes_pi$ in this case is not only because of nuclearity (your remark about the spaces of smooth functions with compact support shows this since $\mathscr D(\mathbb R) \tilde{\otimes}_\pi \mathscr D(\mathbb R) \neq \mathscr D(\mathbb R^2)$).You use first that $\otimes_i = \otimes_\varepsilon$ for Frechet spaces and then nuclearity.
Mar 19, 2013 at 19:35 history edited Peter Michor CC BY-SA 3.0
added 80 characters in body
Mar 19, 2013 at 19:27 vote accept Nevermind
Mar 19, 2013 at 19:11 history edited Peter Michor CC BY-SA 3.0
added 52 characters in body
Mar 19, 2013 at 18:37 history answered Peter Michor CC BY-SA 3.0