Skip to main content
added 330 characters in body
Source Link
Pietro Majer
  • 60.5k
  • 4
  • 122
  • 269

No. Consider the case of a surjective bounded linear operator $T:X\to Y$ which is not a (top-linear) left inverse (that is, $\operatorname{ker}(T)$ does not split in $X$). However by classical selection theorems a surjective bounded linear operator $T$ has a continuous right inverse $g$, even $1$-homogeneous; but it can be G-differentiable at no point, otherwise differentiating you would get a bounded linear right inverse to $T$.

Rmk. I refer to the standard definition of the Gâteaux differential of $f:X \to Y$ at $x$, that is, a bounded linear operator $L$ such that for all $v\in X$ there holds $\frac{d}{dt}f(x+tv)\Big|_{t=0}=Lv$. In particular the chain rule holds. (Warning: some adopt a weaker definition, where $L$ is not even linear.)

No. Consider the case of a surjective bounded linear operator $T:X\to Y$ which is not a (top-linear) left inverse (that is, $\operatorname{ker}(T)$ does not split in $X$). However by classical selection theorems a surjective bounded linear operator $T$ has a continuous right inverse $g$, even $1$-homogeneous; but it can be G-differentiable at no point, otherwise differentiating you would get a bounded linear right inverse to $T$.

No. Consider the case of a surjective bounded linear operator $T:X\to Y$ which is not a (top-linear) left inverse (that is, $\operatorname{ker}(T)$ does not split in $X$). However by classical selection theorems a surjective bounded linear operator $T$ has a continuous right inverse $g$, even $1$-homogeneous; but it can be G-differentiable at no point, otherwise differentiating you would get a bounded linear right inverse to $T$.

Rmk. I refer to the standard definition of the Gâteaux differential of $f:X \to Y$ at $x$, that is, a bounded linear operator $L$ such that for all $v\in X$ there holds $\frac{d}{dt}f(x+tv)\Big|_{t=0}=Lv$. In particular the chain rule holds. (Warning: some adopt a weaker definition, where $L$ is not even linear.)

added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Pietro Majer
  • 60.5k
  • 4
  • 122
  • 269

No. Consider the case of a surjective bounded linear operator $T:X\to Y$ which is not a (top-linear) left inverse (that is, $\operatorname{ker}(T)$ does not split in $X$). However by classical selection theorems a surjective bounded linear operator $T$ has a continuous right inverse $g$, even $1$-homogeneous; but it can be differentiable G-differentiable at no point, otherwise differentiating you would get a bounded linear right inverse to $T$.

No. Consider the case of a surjective bounded linear operator $T:X\to Y$ which is not a (top-linear) left inverse (that is, $\operatorname{ker}(T)$ does not split in $X$). However by classical selection theorems a surjective bounded linear operator $T$ has a continuous right inverse $g$, even $1$-homogeneous; but it can be differentiable at no point, otherwise differentiating you would get a bounded linear right inverse to $T$.

No. Consider the case of a surjective bounded linear operator $T:X\to Y$ which is not a (top-linear) left inverse (that is, $\operatorname{ker}(T)$ does not split in $X$). However by classical selection theorems a surjective bounded linear operator $T$ has a continuous right inverse $g$, even $1$-homogeneous; but it can be G-differentiable at no point, otherwise differentiating you would get a bounded linear right inverse to $T$.

Source Link
Pietro Majer
  • 60.5k
  • 4
  • 122
  • 269

No. Consider the case of a surjective bounded linear operator $T:X\to Y$ which is not a (top-linear) left inverse (that is, $\operatorname{ker}(T)$ does not split in $X$). However by classical selection theorems a surjective bounded linear operator $T$ has a continuous right inverse $g$, even $1$-homogeneous; but it can be differentiable at no point, otherwise differentiating you would get a bounded linear right inverse to $T$.