Let $\Omega$ be an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and take a family of continuous compactly supported functions $f_n$ on $\Omega$ normalized to one (in the $L^2$ sense).

Then, these functions span a subspace $V$ of $L^2$. Now, consider two $L^2$ functions $g$ and $h$ with non-intersecting support. Assume that both $g$ and $h$ only overlap with $k$ of those functions $f_n$. It may happen now that although $\langle g,h \rangle =0$ due to the non-intersecting support of the two, $\langle P_V g,P_V h \rangle \neq 0$ where $P_V$ is the projection onto $V$. However, we expect that "morally" $\langle P_V g,P_V h \rangle$ should still be small if they are far apart and the $(f_n)$ are sufficiently localized.

Of course one could trivially estimate $\langle P_V g,P_V h \rangle \le \left\lVert g\right\rVert \left\lVert h \right\rVert,$ but this estimate is very bad in general as it does not capture the fact that most of the time, this should be something close to zero, since $\langle g,h \rangle =0.$

I ask: Does anybody see a better estimate that captures this $\langle P_V g,P_V h \rangle \neq 0$ being small? Especially, one would expect that the larger $V$ is, the closer should we get to zero.

Let me rephrase the questions like this: Assuming you are not allowed to evaluate $P_Vg$ or $P_Vh$ but only $g,h$ and all $(f_n)$ and inner-products among those objects. Can we get from this a better bound?

  • $\begingroup$ It seems that in case $\|g\|=\|h\|$ we can choose $V$ to be 1-dimenional and close to the vector $g+h$. In this case $P_Vg\approx P_V h$ and $\langle P_Vg,P_Vh\rangle\approx\|g\|/\sqrt{2}$, so is not small. $\endgroup$ – Taras Banakh Aug 7 '17 at 9:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TarasBanakh I said: The larger $V$ is, the closer should we get to zero. Now, you come up with a one-dimensional "counterexample". Do you notice something? $\endgroup$ – Zinkin Aug 7 '17 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ I don't quite understand what you mean in the last paragraph. If you can take inner products of $g$ with the $f_n$ then you can compute $P_V g$, using Gram-Schmidt for instance. So what is really the restriction? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Aug 7 '17 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Zinkin What do you mean by larger $V$? Of larger dimension? Then you can take this 1-dimensional $V_1$ and consider the infinite-dimensional space $V=V_1\oplus L^\perp$, where $L^\perp$ is the orthogonal complement of the linear span $L$ of the set $\{g,h\}\cup V$. Then this larger space $V$ is infinite-dimensional but still the projections of $g$ and $h$ have large inner product. But if "larger" means tends to the whole space in a suitable sense then the inner product tens to zero, but then this is trivial. $\endgroup$ – Taras Banakh Aug 7 '17 at 15:35

I think V is large means that V tends to $L^2(\Omega)$, i.e. you can select enough elements $f_n$ so that $V_n = span\{f_1,\cdots,f_n\}$ and the space span{$f_1,\cdots,f_{\infty} $} forms a complete basis of $L^2(\Omega)$. and (it should means that , otherwise you could add infinite k with support has no intersection with g ,h, then $\langle P_V g, P_V h \rangle $ is invariant).

Under this assumption, $\langle P_V g, P_V h \rangle $ should tend to 0, since

$ \langle P_V g, P_V h \rangle - \langle g, h \rangle = \langle P_V g, P_V h \rangle - \langle P_V g, h \rangle + \langle P_V g, h \rangle - \langle g, h \rangle \leq \| P_{V^{\bot}} h\| + \| P_{V^{\bot}} g\|$

tends to zero if V is large in the sense V tends to $L^2(\Omega)$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.