2
$\begingroup$

In Luenberger book Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality is defined like this: For all $x,y$ in an inner product space $|(x|y)| \le \|x\|\|y\|$. Equality holds if and only if $x = \lambda y$ or $y = \theta$.

Proof starts for all scalars $\lambda$,

$$ 0 \le (x-\lambda y | x-\lambda y) = (x|x) - \lambda(y|x) - \bar{\lambda}(x|y) + |\lambda|^2 (y|y) $$

I understand this expansion. But then, it will select a particular $\lambda = (x|y)/(y|y)$, and obtains

$$ 0 \le (x|x) - \frac{|(x|y)|^2}{(y|y)} $$

I dont understand how he chose that particular $\lambda$. I guess I understand why, he chose it to get rid of it in the main equation, but is it okay to chose any $\lambda$ that will clean up the equation like this?

  • 1
    I find the notation in this question a bit hard to read. (Indeed, I think it has induced some typos.) Is that the notation from the source you cite? Using $|$ both as a separator in the notation for an inner product and for the standard modulus $|\cdot|$ makes things more difficult to parse than need be. I would suggest either $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ or, if you insist on parentheses, $(\cdot,\cdot)$. Cheers.2012-02-07
  • 2
    @cardinal It seems that the author of the book really uses this notation, see the Google Books preview: http://books.google.com/books?id=lZU0CAH4RccC&pg=PA472012-02-07
  • 0
    @Martin: (+1) Yikes.2012-02-07
  • 0
    Is the condition for _equality_ to hold stated correctly in Luenberger's book? What the OP has posted above is what is in the book in a chapter titled Hilbert Space, but it is in a section titled Pre-Hilbert Spaces. I believe that in Hilbert space, $x$ need not **equal** $\lambda y$ for equality to hold but rather only the _slightly weaker_ condition $||x - \lambda y|| = 0$ is needed. But perhaps the condition is intended for spaces in which $||z||=0$ exactly when $z$ is identically $0$, and the more general version is proved later. I don't have the book, only the couple of pages in the link.2012-02-07
  • 0
    Aimed at physics students, I guess, where $(x|y)$ or $\langle x | y \rangle$ is the standard.2012-02-07
  • 0
    About the Luenberger notation: yes, that threw me off a bit too, but that's how he uses it, not sure why.2012-02-07
  • 0
    @DilipSarwate: you are right that the condition for equality (linear dependence) rests on nondegeneracy. But the only difference between Hilbert and Pre-Hilbert spaces is completeness. By definition both are equipped with an inner product, i.e. a *nondegenerate* positive symmetric bi(/sesqui-)linear form.2012-02-12
  • 0
    In my opinion, anybody interested in Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in general, and the question asked here in particular, should read and ponder [this page](http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/csineq.html) by Tim Gowers on the subject. Those interested in going further might want to have a look (and probably, much more than a look) at the gem of a book titled [The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class: An Introduction to the Art of Mathematical Inequalities](http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~steele/Publications/Books/CSMC/CSMC_index.html) by J. Michael Steele.2012-02-12

3 Answers 3

3

I dont understand how he chose that particular $\lambda$. I guess I understand why, he chose it to get rid of it in the main equation, but is it okay to chose any $\lambda$ that will clean up the equation like this?

Yes, the inequality that you display holds for all $\lambda$ and so "it is okay to choose any $\lambda$" that you like. Luenberger's choice (it might well be the one used originally by Cauchy and/or Schwarz) "cleans up the equation" as you note, and provides motivation for its use. But if you have another value for $\lambda$ in mind that allows you to reach the conclusion $$0 \le (x|x) - \frac{|(x|y)|^2}{(y|y)},$$ (which is just a re-arrangement of the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality), by all means, go for it.

See Appendix B of this Lecture Note for a more prolix proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality than the one in the Luenberger book.

3

As said before, we always have $$0\leq\|x-\lambda y\|^2=(x-\lambda y|x-\lambda y)$$ Of course the choice $\lambda=\frac{(x|y)}{\|y\|^2}$ is neither arbitrary or accidental luck. Geometrically the specific $\lambda$ chosen is the one that gives the orthogonal projection of $x$ along the vector $y$.

The product $(x|y)$ removes the part of $x$ that is orthogonal to $y$, and dividing by $\|y\|^2$ normalizes $y$.

Consider the picture below where

  • the black arrow is to picture $x$

  • the blue arrow is to picture $y$

  • the red arrow is to picture $\lambda y$

  • the green arrow is to picture $x-\lambda y$

OrthogonalProjOfXontoY

  • 0
    @JonasMeyer Yes, of course. Thanks Jonas :)2012-02-12
0

You have a wrong idea. Actually, you don't need to select $\lambda$. For every $\lambda$,

$0 \le (x-\lambda y | x-\lambda y)$, that means

$0 \le (x|x)-\lambda(y|x)-\bar{\lambda}(x|y) + |\lambda|^2 (y|y)$,Consider it a function with the independent variable $\lambda$. So if $\lambda$ is R

$\Delta= 4(x|y)^2-4(x|x)(y|y) \le 0$. If $\lambda is C$, you need to use other functions.