TheoremBase

The lower bound and the closedness of the image both come from Bolzano-Weierstrass together with the norm bound for the matrix-vector product; surjectivity follows by projecting a missing point onto the closed convex image, whose normal would annihilate the image; the inverse is then assembled from the preimages of the standard basis vectors.

Proof

We use the notation of the statement. Throughout, A(λv+μw)=λ Av+μ AwA(\lambda v+\mu w)=\lambda\,Av+\mu\,Aw is claim 1 of Linearity, Compatibility with the Matrix Product, and a Norm Bound for the Matrix-Vector Product, and by claim 3 of that lemma there is C∈RC\in\mathbb{R} with 0≤C0\le C such that

∥Av∥≤C ∥v∥for every v∈Rn.(C)\lVert Av\rVert\le C\,\lVert v\rVert\qquad\text{for every }v\in\mathbb{R}^{n}. \tag{C}

In particular A0=0A0=0. We write e1,…,ene_{1},\dots,e_{n} for the standard basis vectors of Rn\mathbb{R}^{n}. If (pl)l∈N(p_{l})_{l\in\mathbb{N}} is a strictly increasing sequence in N\mathbb{N} then l≤pll\le p_{l} for every ll, by Principle of Induction for the Natural Numbers.

Claim 1. Suppose no such cc exists. Then for every m∈Nm\in\mathbb{N}, the number 1/m1/m being positive, there is hm∈Rnh_{m}\in\mathbb{R}^{n} with ∥Ahm∥<1m∥hm∥\lVert Ah_{m}\rVert<\tfrac{1}{m}\lVert h_{m}\rVert; necessarily hm≠0h_{m}\neq0, since for hm=0h_{m}=0 both sides would be 00. Put um=hm/∥hm∥u_{m}=h_{m}/\lVert h_{m}\rVert; by claim 5 of Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n: Square, Distance, Vanishing, Coordinate Bounds, Homogeneity, Triangle Inequalities and Expansion of a Square, ∥um∥=1\lVert u_{m}\rVert=1 and

∥Aum∥=1∥hm∥∥Ahm∥<1m.\lVert Au_{m}\rVert=\tfrac{1}{\lVert h_{m}\rVert}\lVert Ah_{m}\rVert<\tfrac{1}{m}.

The points umu_{m} lie in the bounded set Bˉ(0,1)\bar{B}(0,1), so The Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem in Rn\mathbb{R}^n provides u∈Rnu\in\mathbb{R}^{n} and a strictly increasing sequence (pl)l∈N(p_{l})_{l\in\mathbb{N}} in N\mathbb{N} with (upl)l∈N(u_{p_{l}})_{l\in\mathbb{N}} converging to uu. By claim 6 of Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n: Square, Distance, Vanishing, Coordinate Bounds, Homogeneity, Triangle Inequalities and Expansion of a Square applied to upl=u+(upl−u)u_{p_{l}}=u+(u_{p_{l}}-u) and to u=upl+(u−upl)u=u_{p_{l}}+(u-u_{p_{l}}), together with ∥u−upl∥=∥upl−u∥\lVert u-u_{p_{l}}\rVert=\lVert u_{p_{l}}-u\rVert, which is claim 5 of that lemma with the scalar −1-1,

1−∥upl−u∥≤∥u∥≤1+∥upl−u∥,1-\lVert u_{p_{l}}-u\rVert\le\lVert u\rVert\le1+\lVert u_{p_{l}}-u\rVert ,

and letting ll increase, Arithmetic of Limits of Real Sequences and Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences give ∥u∥=1\lVert u\rVert=1; in particular u≠0u\neq0 by claim 3 of Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n: Square, Distance, Vanishing, Coordinate Bounds, Homogeneity, Triangle Inequalities and Expansion of a Square. Moreover, by claim 6 of that lemma and (C),

∥Au∥≤∥A(u−upl)∥+∥Aupl∥≤C ∥u−upl∥+1pl≤C ∥u−upl∥+1l,\lVert Au\rVert\le\lVert A(u-u_{p_{l}})\rVert+\lVert Au_{p_{l}}\rVert\le C\,\lVert u-u_{p_{l}}\rVert+\tfrac{1}{p_{l}}\le C\,\lVert u-u_{p_{l}}\rVert+\tfrac{1}{l},

whose right-hand side can be made smaller than any prescribed positive real by taking ll large, using The Archimedean Property of the Real Numbers. Hence ∥Au∥=0\lVert Au\rVert=0 and Au=0Au=0. Since also A0=0A0=0 and u≠0u\neq0, the map h↦Ahh\mapsto Ah is not injective, contrary to hypothesis.

Claim 2. If Ah,Ah′∈A(Rn)Ah,Ah'\in A(\mathbb{R}^{n}) and θ∈R\theta\in\mathbb{R} with 0≤θ≤10\le\theta\le1, then θ Ah+(1−θ)Ah′=A(θh+(1−θ)h′)∈A(Rn)\theta\,Ah+(1-\theta)Ah'=A(\theta h+(1-\theta)h')\in A(\mathbb{R}^{n}), so A(Rn)A(\mathbb{R}^{n}) is convex by Segments and Convex Subsets of Rn\mathbb{R}^n; and 0=A0∈A(Rn)0=A0\in A(\mathbb{R}^{n}).

Now suppose h↦Ahh\mapsto Ah is injective and let cc be as in claim 1. We verify the criterion of Sequential Characterization of Closed Subsets of a Metric Space. Let (zm)m∈N(z_{m})_{m\in\mathbb{N}} be a sequence in A(Rn)A(\mathbb{R}^{n}) converging to z∈Rnz\in\mathbb{R}^{n}; by injectivity each zmz_{m} is AhmAh_{m} for a uniquely determined hmh_{m}, so no choice is involved. Since (zm)(z_{m}) converges there is m0m_{0} with ∥zm−z∥≤1\lVert z_{m}-z\rVert\le1, hence ∥zm∥≤∥z∥+1\lVert z_{m}\rVert\le\lVert z\rVert+1, for m0≤mm_{0}\le m; letting RR be the largest of the finitely many numbers ∥z∥+1\lVert z\rVert+1 and ∥z1∥,…,∥zm0∥\lVert z_{1}\rVert,\dots,\lVert z_{m_{0}}\rVert, we get ∥zm∥≤R\lVert z_{m}\rVert\le R for every mm, and therefore ∥hm∥≤c−1∥Ahm∥≤c−1R\lVert h_{m}\rVert\le c^{-1}\lVert Ah_{m}\rVert\le c^{-1}R by claim 1. The points hmh_{m} thus lie in the bounded set Bˉ(0,c−1R)\bar{B}(0,c^{-1}R), and The Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem in Rn\mathbb{R}^n provides h∈Rnh\in\mathbb{R}^{n} and a strictly increasing (pl)l∈N(p_{l})_{l\in\mathbb{N}} with (hpl)(h_{p_{l}}) converging to hh. By claim 6 of Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n: Square, Distance, Vanishing, Coordinate Bounds, Homogeneity, Triangle Inequalities and Expansion of a Square and (C),

∥Ah−z∥≤∥A(h−hpl)∥+∥zpl−z∥≤C ∥h−hpl∥+∥zpl−z∥,\lVert Ah-z\rVert\le\lVert A(h-h_{p_{l}})\rVert+\lVert z_{p_{l}}-z\rVert\le C\,\lVert h-h_{p_{l}}\rVert+\lVert z_{p_{l}}-z\rVert ,

which can be made smaller than any prescribed positive real; hence ∥Ah−z∥=0\lVert Ah-z\rVert=0 and z=Ah∈A(Rn)z=Ah\in A(\mathbb{R}^{n}). So A(Rn)A(\mathbb{R}^{n}) is closed.

Claim 3. Suppose A(Rn)≠RnA(\mathbb{R}^{n})\neq\mathbb{R}^{n} and pick b∈Rn∖A(Rn)b\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus A(\mathbb{R}^{n}). By claim 2 the set A(Rn)A(\mathbb{R}^{n}) is nonempty, convex and closed, so claim 1 of Nearest-Point Projection onto a Nonempty Closed Convex Subset of Euclidean Space defines the nearest point π(b)∈A(Rn)\pi(b)\in A(\mathbb{R}^{n}) and claim 2 of that lemma gives

(b−π(b))⋅(w−π(b))≤0for every w∈A(Rn).\bigl(b-\pi(b)\bigr)\cdot\bigl(w-\pi(b)\bigr)\le0\qquad\text{for every }w\in A(\mathbb{R}^{n}).

Put ν0=b−π(b)\nu_{0}=b-\pi(b); then ν0≠0\nu_{0}\neq0, since π(b)\pi(b) lies in A(Rn)A(\mathbb{R}^{n}) and bb does not. Write π(b)=Ag\pi(b)=Ag. For h∈Rnh\in\mathbb{R}^{n} and t∈Rt\in\mathbb{R} the point w=A(g+th)=π(b)+t Ahw=A(g+th)=\pi(b)+t\,Ah lies in A(Rn)A(\mathbb{R}^{n}), so the displayed inequality gives t (ν0⋅(Ah))≤0t\,\bigl(\nu_{0}\cdot(Ah)\bigr)\le0 for every t∈Rt\in\mathbb{R}, using The Dot Product on Rn\mathbb{R}^n Is Symmetric, Bilinear and Positive Definite. Taking tt of either sign forces ν0⋅(Ah)=0\nu_{0}\cdot(Ah)=0. Hence ν=ν0/∥ν0∥\nu=\nu_{0}/\lVert\nu_{0}\rVert, which has norm 11 by claim 5 of Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n: Square, Distance, Vanishing, Coordinate Bounds, Homogeneity, Triangle Inequalities and Expansion of a Square, satisfies ν⋅(Ah)=0\nu\cdot(Ah)=0 for every hh, contrary to hypothesis. Therefore A(Rn)=RnA(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathbb{R}^{n}.

Claim 4. By claim 3, for each i∈{1,…,n}i\in\{1,\dots,n\} there is bi∈Rnb_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{n} with Abi=eiAb_{i}=e_{i}, and it is unique by injectivity. Let BB be the real n×nn\times n matrix with Bji=(bi)jB_{ji}=(b_{i})_{j}. For k∈Rnk\in\mathbb{R}^{n}, Matrix-Vector Product gives (Bk)j=∑i=1nBjiki=∑i=1nki(bi)j(Bk)_{j}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{ji}k_{i}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}k_{i}(b_{i})_{j}, that is Bk=∑i=1nkibiBk=\sum_{i=1}^{n}k_{i}b_{i}. Claim 1 of Linearity, Compatibility with the Matrix Product, and a Norm Bound for the Matrix-Vector Product gives A(v+w)=Av+AwA(v+w)=Av+Aw and A(μv)=μ AvA(\mu v)=\mu\,Av for two summands, and hence, by Principle of Induction for the Natural Numbers on the number of summands, A(∑i=1rμivi)=∑i=1rμi AviA\bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{r}\mu_{i}v_{i}\bigr)=\sum_{i=1}^{r}\mu_{i}\,Av_{i} for every r∈Nr\in\mathbb{N}. Therefore

A(Bk)=∑i=1nki Abi=∑i=1nkiei=k,A(Bk)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}k_{i}\,Ab_{i}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}k_{i}e_{i}=k ,

the last equality because the jjth coordinate of ∑ikiei\sum_{i}k_{i}e_{i} is kjk_{j}, by the description of the standard basis vectors in Orthonormal Families, Standard Basis Vectors, and Plane Rotations of Euclidean Space. By claim 2 of Linearity, Compatibility with the Matrix Product, and a Norm Bound for the Matrix-Vector Product, (AB)k=A(Bk)=k(AB)k=A(Bk)=k for every kk. Taking k=eβk=e_{\beta} and using (Meβ)α=∑iMαi(eβ)i=Mαβ(Me_{\beta})_{\alpha}=\sum_{i}M_{\alpha i}(e_{\beta})_{i}=M_{\alpha\beta} for any real n×nn\times n matrix MM, which is Matrix-Vector Product, we get (AB)αβ=(eβ)α=(In)αβ(AB)_{\alpha\beta}=(e_{\beta})_{\alpha}=(I_{n})_{\alpha\beta} for all α,β\alpha,\beta, where InI_{n} is the identity matrix; that is, AB=InAB=I_{n}.

For the other side, let h∈Rnh\in\mathbb{R}^{n}. Then A(B(Ah))=AhA\bigl(B(Ah)\bigr)=Ah by what was just proved applied to k=Ahk=Ah, so B(Ah)=hB(Ah)=h by injectivity, that is (BA)h=h=Inh(BA)h=h=I_{n}h for every hh by claim 2 of Linearity, Compatibility with the Matrix Product, and a Norm Bound for the Matrix-Vector Product and claim 2 of Linearity of the Matrix-Vector Product and the Quadratic Form as a Double Sum. Reading off entries as before gives BA=InBA=I_{n}. Hence BB is an inverse of AA in the sense of Inverse Matrix and Invertible Real Square Matrix, so AA is invertible and A−1=BA^{-1}=B by Uniqueness of the Matrix Inverse.

Finally, let k∈Rnk\in\mathbb{R}^{n} and put h=A−1kh=A^{-1}k, so that Ah=kAh=k. Claim 1 gives ∥k∥=∥Ah∥≥c∥h∥\lVert k\rVert=\lVert Ah\rVert\ge c\lVert h\rVert, and dividing by the positive number cc gives ∥A−1k∥≤c−1∥k∥\lVert A^{-1}k\rVert\le c^{-1}\lVert k\rVert.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…