Talk:Parallelogram law: Difference between revisions
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
[[User:130.94.162.64|130.94.162.64]] 23:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
[[User:130.94.162.64|130.94.162.64]] 23:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
Certainly the omission |
Certainly the omission of the converse to the statement that a norm coming from an inner product satisfies the parallelogram law hold needs to be addressed, in my opinion. |
||
[[Special:Contributions/143.210.42.231|143.210.42.231]] ([[User talk:143.210.42.231|talk]]) 09:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/143.210.42.231|143.210.42.231]] ([[User talk:143.210.42.231|talk]]) 09:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 09:52, 15 May 2013
Mathematics B‑class Mid‑priority | ||||||||||
|
Normed vector spaces
For normed vector spaces whose norm obeys the parallelogram law, the operation
is an inner product only for a real vector space, i.e. a vector space over some scalar field that is contained within the reals. For the general case of complex vector spaces we need to define
where is some nonzero pure imaginary element of the scalar field, but not necessarily (in order to take into account fields such as that do not contain )
This isn't a problem when talking about complete spaces, and by the way something about the relationship between Hilbert spaces and Banach spaces could at least be mentioned in passing here as well.
130.94.162.64 23:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Certainly the omission of the converse to the statement that a norm coming from an inner product satisfies the parallelogram law hold needs to be addressed, in my opinion. 143.210.42.231 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
equivalence of p.-law and general quadrilateral being a parallologram
From the formula for the general quadrilateral it follows easily that a general quadrilateral is a parallelogramm if x=0. This and the formula itself are easy enough to proof, but I cannot find a quotable source for either statement. Anybody else got one?--CWitte (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)