Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 25 at 14:38 answer added Onur Oktay timeline score: 5
Nov 23 at 2:12 comment added David Gao @YemonChoi Since the OP asked whether an easy criterion exists to see if a subset is compact, I interpreted that as asking whether an equivalent condition that may be useful in practice exists. Certainly the conditions you mentioned are sufficient, trivially so, but they are definitely not necessary, no? I don’t know of an equivalent condition either, but I do think a condition equivalent to weak sequential compactness is close enough. Though it will now be up to the OP to clarify exactly what they want.
Nov 23 at 0:08 review Close votes
Nov 28 at 17:47
Nov 22 at 23:54 history edited Yemon Choi
replaced tag
Nov 22 at 23:51 comment added Yemon Choi @DavidGao These are all well and good, but why would one expect a given subset of the trace class operators to have these properties? I maintain that "finite subsets are compact" (or if one wants to be a bit more fancy, "convex hulls of sequences converging to zero are compact") answers the original question that was asked, just as well as the conditions that you mention
Nov 22 at 22:28 comment added David Gao If you want weak sequential compactness instead, then I’m pretty sure a necessary and sufficient condition similar to tightness exists, in analogy with Prokhorov’s theorem in the classical case. Norm compactness seems hard to arrange, unless the span of your set happens to have Schur’s property, in which case weak sequential compactness and norm compactness are the same thing.
Nov 22 at 22:01 comment added Yemon Choi Finite subsets are compact. Presumably you want something more than this; could you give us some indication of what you are looking for?
Nov 22 at 20:10 history edited lulli_ CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 137 characters in body; edited title
S Nov 22 at 19:32 review First questions
Nov 22 at 23:01
S Nov 22 at 19:32 history asked lulli_ CC BY-SA 4.0