Infinite dimensional

Another of the postulates defining Hilbert space is that JF constitutes an infinite-dimensional manifold. In other words, there must exist in a denumerably infinite sequence of independent vectors /i>, /2>, such that... 

It is possible to perform a systematic decoupling of this moment expansion using the superoperator formalism (34,35). An infinite dimensional operator vector space defined by a basis of field operators Xj which supports the scalar product (or metric)... 

R. D. Jalvinen, Finite and Infinite Dimensional Linear Spaces (1981)... 

A set of complete orthonormal functions ipfx) of a single variable x may be regarded as the basis vectors of a linear vector space of either finite or infinite dimensions, depending on whether the complete set contains a finite or infinite number of members. The situation is analogous to three-dimensional cartesian space formed by three orthogonal unit vectors. In quantum mechanics we usually (see Section 7.2 for an exception) encounter complete sets with an infinite number of members and, therefore, are usually concerned with linear vector spaces of infinite dimensionality. Such a linear vector space is called a Hilbert space. The functions ffx) used as the basis vectors may constitute a discrete set or a continuous set. While a vector space composed of a discrete set of basis vectors is easier to visualize (even if the space is of infinite dimensionality) than one composed of a continuous set, there is no mathematical reason to exclude continuous basis vectors from the concept of Hilbert space. In Dirac notation, the basis vectors in Hilbert space are called ket vectors or just kets and are represented by the symbol tpi) or sometimes simply by /). These ket vectors determine a ket space. 

The parameter identification problem associated with the conventional permeability experiments is within the first class (with m= 1). By contrast, the problems we consider here are within the second and third classes these areJunctional estimation problems. Ultimately, however, these are solved with finite-dimensional representations, although an essential aspect of the solution of these infinite-dimensional (function) estimation problems is the selection of the appropriate representations. 

For optimization problems that are derived from (ordinary or partial) differential equation models, a number of advanced optimization strategies can be applied. Most of these problems are posed as NLPs, although recent work has also extended these models to MINLPs and global optimization formulations. For the optimization of profiles in time and space, indirect methods can be applied based on the optimality conditions of the infinite-dimensional problem using, for instance, the calculus of variations. However, these methods become difficult to apply if inequality constraints and discrete decisions are part of the optimization problem. Instead, current methods are based on NLP and MINLP formulations and can be divided into two classes ... 

Vol. 1556 S. B. Kuksin, Nearly Integrable Infinite-Dimensional Hamiltonian Systems. XXVII, 101 pages. 1993. 

Each of these columns of this symmetrical matrix may be seen as representing a molecule in the subspace formed by the density functions of the N molecules that constitute the set. Such a vector may also be seen as a molecular descriptor, where the infinite dimensionality of the electron density has been reduced to just N scalars that are real and positive definite. Furthermore, once chosen a certain operator in the MQSM, the descriptor is unbiased. A different way of looking at Z is to consider it as an iV-dimensional representation of the operator within a set of density functions. Every molecule then corresponds to a point in this /V-dimensional space. For the collection of all points, one can construct the so-called point clouds, which allow one to graphically represent the similarity between molecules and to investigate possible relations between molecules and their properties [23-28]. 

Almost complex structures I,J,K on X induce natural almost complex structures on Tj A = Q, u E)). These make A an infinite dimensional flat hyper-Kahler manifold. The group of gauge transformations, denoted by G, acts on A by pull-back. The hyper-Kahler moment map of the action of on ... 

This is the moduli space of the anti-self-dual connections. (Note that -action is not necessarily free. Hence the moduli spaces may have singularities.) The spaces /r (0) and G are both infinite dimensional, but its quotient, that is, the moduli space of the anti-selfdual connections is finite dimensional. The proof for Theorem 3.30 works even in this case if one uses the appropriate analytical packages, i.e. the Sobolev space, etc. 

The infinite dimensional Heisenberg algebra s is a Lie algebra generated by p[m m E Z 0 ) and K with the following relations... 

This algebra has a representation on the exterior algebra F = / of an infinite dimensional vector space V = Cdpi 0 Cdp2 defined by... 

Optimal control problems have more interesting features in that control profiles are literally infinite-dimensional and attention must be paid to approximating them accurately. Here the optimality conditions can be represented implicitly by high-index DAE systems, and consequently a stable and accurate discretization is required. To demonstrate these features, the classical catalyst mixing problem of Jackson (1968) was solved with the simultaneous approach. In addition to theoretical properties of the discretization, the structure of the optimal control problem was also exploited through a chainruling strategy. 

All the states of matter succeed one after the other upon an immense ladder, moving from the one-dimensional world towards an infinitely-dimensional world. .. and the scala of beings (meaning the centers of consciousness inhabiting complex organisms) only really begins in the three-dimensional world. ... 

What about the converse does any linear transformation determine a matrix This question raises two issues. First, if the domain is infinite-dimensional, the question is more complicated. Mathematicians usually reserve the word matrix for a finite-dimensional matrix (i.e., an array with a finite number of rows and colunms). Physicists often use matrix to denote a linear transformation between infinite-dimensional spaces, where mathematicians would usually prefer to say linear transformation. Second, even in finitedimensional spaces, one must specify bases in domain and target space to determine the entries in a matrix. We discuss this issue in more detail in Section 2.5 for the special case of linear operators. 

Since a complex scalar product resembles the EucUdean dot product in its form and definition, we can use our intuition about perpendicularity in the Euclidean three-space we inhabit to study complex scalar product spaces. However, we must be aware of two important differences. Eirst, we are dealing with complex scalars rather than real scalars. Second, we are often dealing with infinite-dimensional spaces. It is easy to underestimate the trouble that infinite dimensions can cause. If this section seems unduly technical (especially the introduction to orthogonal projections), it is because we are careful to avoid the infinite-dimensional traps. 

In EucUdean space, orthonormal bases help both to simplify calculations and to prove theorems. Unitary bases, also called complex orthonormal bases, play the same role in complex scalar product spaces. To define a unitary basis for arbitrary (including infinite-dimensional) complex scalar product spaces, we first define spanning. 

If V is finite dimensional, then Definition 3.7 is consistent with Definition 2.2 (Exercise 3.13). In infinite-dimensional complex scalar product spaces. Definition 3.7 is usually simpler than an infinite-dimensional version of Definition 2.2. To make sense of an infinite linear combination of functions, one must address issues of convergence however, arguments involving perpendicular subspaces are often relatively simple. We can now define unitary bases. 

Although our definition of adjoint applies only to finite-dimensional vector spaces, we cannot resist giving an inhnite-dimensional example. The proof of uniqueness works for infinite-dimensional spaces as well, but our proof of existence fails. Fix an element a e L (W) and consider the linear transformation T c defined by... 

Next we prove a few technical propositions that will be useful to us later. These may seem obvious because their finite-dimensional real analogs are geometrically obvious however, infinite-dimensional vector spaces are tricky and one must proceed carefully. 

The goal of this section is to find useful spanning subspaces of C[— 1, 1] and 2(52) Recall from Definition 3.7 that a subspace spans if the perpendicular subspace is trivial. In a finite-dimensional space V, there are no proper spanning subspaces any subspace that spans must have the same dimension as V and hence is equal to V. However, for an infinite-dimensional complex scalar product space the situation is more complicated. There are often proper subspaces that span. We will see that polynomials span both C[—l, 1] andL2(5 2) in Propositions 3.8 and 3.9, respectively. In the process, we will appeal to the Stone-Weierstrass theorem (Theorem 3.2) without giving its proof. 

Exercise 3.29 Show that if W is a finite-dimensional subspace of a complex scalar product space V . then (IV= W. Note that V need not be finite dimensional. Find a counterexample in infinite dimensions, i.e., find an infinite-dimensional subspace W of a complex scalar product space V such that (W-L)-L 7 W. 

Proposition 4.6 Suppose (G, V, p) and (G, W, p) are isomorphic representations of the group G. Then either both V and W are infinite-dimensional, or both are finite dimensional and the dimension of V is equal to the dimension ofW. 

Likewise, if V is finite-dimensional, we can apply Proposition 2.5 to 7 . The only other possibility is that V and VT are both infinite-dimensional. ... 

Recall from Section 3.3 and Exercise 3.29 that there are infinite-dimensional VP s that are not images of an orthogonal projections. 

Proposition 6.11 implies that irreducible representations are the identifiable basic building blocks of all finite-dimensional representations of compact groups. These results can be generalized to infinite-dimensional representations of compact groups. The main difficulty is not with the representation theory, but rather with linear operators on infinite-dimensional vector spaces. Readers interested in the mathematical details ( dense subspaces and so on) should consult a book on functional analysis, such as Reed and Simon [RS],... 

---