Timeline for Does the uniform boundedness principle holds for multilinear maps as well?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 at 10:38 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 10:28 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 10:22 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 4:00 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 2:57 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 101 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 2:13 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 2:12 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @Isaac : (i) Yes, the same kind of argument holds for multilinear forms. I have added details on that. (ii) Fréchet spaces are metrizable. So, we can use balls wrt any metric metrizing the topology. However, now balls are not used. | |
| Mar 12 at 2:07 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 60 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 2:02 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 442 characters in body
|
| Mar 11 at 22:11 | comment | added | Isaac | One more thing: what exactly do you mean by "a ball of radius $r>0$"? Is this radius w.r.t the metric of $E$? | |
| Mar 11 at 22:07 | vote | accept | Isaac | ||
| Mar 11 at 22:07 | comment | added | Isaac | Thank you very much for your answer as always. It sees evident that your proof extends to multilinear cases. Do you think my judgement is correct? | |
| Mar 11 at 21:38 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Mar 11 at 19:55 | history | answered | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |