Talk:Riesz's lemma

Clean up typesetting

I did the poor typesetting, I just don't know how to type math in Wikipedia, yet. But I did correct the erroneous "Riesz' lemma" and I removed the proof as it was a distraction from the bulk of the article. Additionally, I provided the necessary citation, albeit awkwardly in the body of text. Brydustin (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pity that the proof was removed, as it is essential to understand this theorem. Loxley (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is just a sketch, and is visible in this version from 2012. It's OK, not particularly magical. The current article restates more-or-less the same sketch, in the "metric formulation" section. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the proof and framed it to reduce distraction. If it still seems disruptive, perhaps utilizing Template:Collapse could be a suitable solution. Hbghlyj (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

intro paragraph

after reading this article, I am not sure it is clear how “It specifies (often easy to check) conditions that guarantee that a subspace in a normed vector space is dense.” follows from the lemma as stated. Perhaps this is simply my own misunderstanding, but for a layperson this conclusion isn’t obvious. The implications for compactness are much more clear and might be more appropriate for the opening paragraph. Would love to hear thoughts on this. 168.4.65.130 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

From the proposers edit summary, I see: "13:27, 17 July 2024 TakuyaMurata I don’t think these are generally considered separate results so it’s probably better to have just one article". Klbrain (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]