1
$\begingroup$

A sequence $\{f_{n}\}_{n\in I}$ is a frame for a separable Hilbert space $H$ if there exists $0

Some books define a frame for just "Hilbert space" and not mentioning the "separability". Is there any difference between these two cases?

  • 0
    That's strange! No one have any idea about this problem!2012-10-15
  • 1
    All that I can add is: some books take it as the definition that a Hilbert Space is separable, this being the most interesting case. Perhaps this helps?!2012-10-15
  • 0
    @Sebastian: Thank you. I was wondering why a "separable" Hilbert space is most interesting than just Hilbert space?2012-10-16
  • 0
    Sorry this is a bit late. You can prove that any two separable Hilbert Spaces are isomorphic, by the appropriate sense of isomorphism. This gives nice results such as $L^2([0,1])$ being equivalent to $l^2$ the space of square bounded sequences2012-10-16

1 Answers 1

1

If the Hilbert space is not separable and $\{f_n\}_{n\in I}$ is a frame in this sense, then take $f\neq 0$ orthogonal to all the $f_n$'s: it's possible, otherwise the Hilbert space would be separable. By the first inequality, we would have that $f=0$, which is not possible.

But it can make sense if we deal with an arbitrary set. For example, take $\ell²(0,1)$, which is not separable and $f_i(k):=\delta_{ik}$ for $i,k\in (0,1)$.

  • 0
    Is $I$ assumed to be countable?2012-10-17
  • 0
    I assumed that as in the OP we talked about a sequence.2012-10-18
  • 1
    Ah, I missed the word "sequence". The concept would make sense for an arbitrary index set $I$ and this would remove the restriction to separable Hilbert spaces, maybe that generalization led to the OP's confusion?2012-10-18