Zulip Chat Archive

Stream: maths

Topic: Inversion is analytic


view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 18:17):

Given equivalent Banach spaces E and F, the subset U = (E ≃L[π•œ] F) of E β†’L[π•œ] F consisting of invertible operators is open. As far as I can tell, this fact is necessary to prove the inverse function theorem in the CkC^k and smooth categories.

I cannot see how to prove this fact without more machinery. @Sebastien Gouezel @Yury G. Kudryashov (and others), here is what I can think of; can you streamline it?

normed_space.multilinear : In a Banach algebra A, the symmetrized diagonal map (a1,...an)β†¦βˆ‘ΟƒβˆˆSnaΟƒ(1)β‹―aΟƒ(n)(a_1, ... a_n) \mapsto \sum_{\sigma\in S_n}a_{\sigma(1)}\cdots a_{\sigma(n)} is multilinear.
calculus.times_cont_diff : Define a formal power series in a Banach algebra A. This induces a formal multilinear series.
analytic.[new file] : Theory of Banach-algebra-analytic functions, i.e., analytic functions whose formal multilinear series is a formal power series in a Banach algebra. Series 1+a+a2+β‹―1 + a + a^2 + \cdots for (1βˆ’a)βˆ’1(1-a)^{-1}; hence, analyticity of the inversion function, and the openness of the group of units. Compare issue #1858
normed_space.operator_norm : E β†’L[π•œ] E (fixed typo, had written E β†’L[π•œ] F) is a Banach algebra.

view this post on Zulip Sebastien Gouezel (Jun 22 2020 at 18:35):

You can indeed give a proof using the fact that E β†’L[π•œ] E is a Banach algebra. If you need shortcuts, you can also give a pretty direct proof, by noting that if A is invertible, then you have an inverse for A + h for small enough h, given by the series βˆ‘(βˆ’Aβˆ’1h)nAβˆ’1\sum (-A^{-1} h)^n A^{-1} (where the convergence follows from the norm convergence, which follows from the convergence of geometric series -- and all this is already in mathlib).

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 18:43):

Is that ok? You said at the discussion of #1858,

I just want to get the definition of analytic functions in Lean because this is so basic and too easy to do in the non-proper generality.

so I suspect you would prefer to have facts about analytic functions in Banach algebras also done in their proper generality :)

view this post on Zulip Patrick Massot (Jun 22 2020 at 18:44):

He meant "including the case of pp-adic analytic functions" and stuff like that.

view this post on Zulip Patrick Massot (Jun 22 2020 at 18:44):

:shrug:

view this post on Zulip Kevin Buzzard (Jun 22 2020 at 18:45):

I think k should be a complete Banach algebra in this lemma, so we can apply the result in the theory of adic spaces :P

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 18:47):

I guess the question here is whether the theory of power series in a Banach algebra should be set up as a special case of Sebastien's theory of formal multilinear series. In the long term, surely yes; in the short term, ...?

view this post on Zulip Sebastien Gouezel (Jun 22 2020 at 18:50):

Power series in a Banach algebra is more like (one-dimensional) complex analysis. This situation deserves a whole independent API (just like we have one for the one-dimensional derivative). The higher dimensional results can be applied to this specific situation (for instance to deduce that the composition of analytic functions is analytic, or things like that).

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 18:52):

Yes. But in mathlib, we have deriv defined in terms of fderiv. I am asking whether we should do the analogue here ...

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 18:53):

... i.e., to define a Banach-algebra-analytic function as one which is (in your current definition)-analytic with respect to the formal multilinear series induced by some formal power series.

view this post on Zulip Kevin Buzzard (Jun 22 2020 at 18:53):

I wasn't being serious. But the reason I said it is that actually I once wrote 30 pages about the basic theory of compact maps between modules over a Banach algebra, and characteristic power series etc etc, because I needed it all in the p-adic case when I was working with p-adic families of automorphic forms. I was generalising work of Coleman (which was inaccurate in places); Coleman himself told me that he was proud, because he was generalising work of Grothendieck, something which is essentially impossible due to the way Grothendieck worked (but this was early Grothendieck).

view this post on Zulip Sebastien Gouezel (Jun 22 2020 at 18:55):

analytic is already defined, so it doesn't need a new definition. The equivalence with the other definition in terms of (usual) power series will have to be proved, yes, but it doesn't have to be now. Just having a stub of a theory with what you need now definitely makes sense, though!

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 18:59):

Let me check I understand correctly: there is currently no definition of what I am calling a Banach-algebra-analytic function, right? That is, a function from a Banach algebra to itself locally equal to a power series aβ†¦βˆ‘i=0∞ciaia \mapsto \sum_{i=0}^\infty c_ia^i.

view this post on Zulip Sebastien Gouezel (Jun 22 2020 at 18:59):

Exactly.

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 19:00):

What is currently defined in analytic is a function locally equal to a formal multilinear series aβ†¦βˆ‘i=0∞Ci(a,a,…a)a \mapsto \sum_{i=0}^\infty C_i(a,a,\ldots a), where CiC_i are ii-multilinear maps that have no particular connection to the Banach algebra structure.

view this post on Zulip Sebastien Gouezel (Jun 22 2020 at 19:01):

Yes.

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 19:02):

OK, thanks! So you are suggesting I do just the stub of the power series theory, and for now, not establish the relationship to the more general theory?

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 19:04):

@Kevin Buzzard maybe you can do the most general version for us :)

view this post on Zulip Kevin Buzzard (Jun 22 2020 at 19:06):

It is somehow impossible, isn't it. I am pleased that all this stuff is being set up in this generality, because p-adic Banach spaces are objects which have been seriously used in number theory (even Serre wrote a paper about them in the 60s, related to the Weil conjectures), but one can always find more generality; at some point you have to know when to stop.

view this post on Zulip Sebastien Gouezel (Jun 22 2020 at 19:08):

Yes, it seems reasonable. Although if you start needing results that would follow from the general theory (like, the composition or the inverse of analytic maps is analytic), it is better to prove the relationship with the general theory than to prove them again in your specific case.

view this post on Zulip Heather Macbeth (Jun 22 2020 at 19:09):

OK. Thanks a lot. It may be possible to avoid the general theory, for now. DieudonnΓ© in Foundations of modern analysis uses power series only to show that the set of invertible operators is open; then he has a clever induction to show that the inversion operation is smooth, without ever having proved that it is analytic.


Last updated: May 12 2021 at 08:14 UTC