Ok, it's time for a #FUNctionalAnalysis thread! Let's talk about Hilbert spaces. (I hope you like linear algebra, because that's what we're

If you want to impress people, you can just say a Hilbert space is just a complete infinite dimensional inner product space and leave it at that, but let's talk about what that actually means.
When you first learn about vectors, you talk about them as arrows in space; things with a magnitude and a direction. These are elements of R^n where n is the number of dimensions of the space you care about.
You also talk about the dot product (or inner product) as a way to tell when vectors are orthogonal. (I'm purposely saying "orthogonal" instead of "perpendicular" here, but when you actually think about arrows, it's the same thing.)
As my linear algebra students are about to see, R^n is far from the only interesting vector space. A classic example is the space of polynomials of dimension less than or equal to n
We know that Taylor series can be used to represent functions that aren't polynomials as "polynomials," albeit infinitely long ones, and this is how I like to motivate infinite dimensional vector spaces.
Our vectors will be infinite sequences, and we'll need some sort of convergence requirement. To make things easy for ourselves, let's use an inner product inspired by R^n: this is called the l^2 inner product.
One thing that's nice in R^n is that we have an easy orthonormal basis. We can make "standard basis vectors" for l^2 as well.
Remember how in R^n, you can get the length of the vector by doing the dot product with itself and then taking the square root? That's the metric induced by the inner product.

In our infinite dimensional l^2, we're going to only consider vectors that have finite length.
So far, we've just made an infinite dimensional inner product space. What makes this a Hilbert space is the requirement/property that it is a "complete metric space with the metric induced by the inner product."
A metric space is complete if every Cauchy sequence converges. Think of this as saying "things that get closer and closer together also get closer and closer to a limit point." R^n is a complete metric space:
Sometimes people are disappointed to find out that all finite dimensional vector spaces "are" R^n, so hopefully I won't disappoint you too much when I say that all (infinite dimensional) Hilbert spaces "are" l^2.
More precisely, all *separable* Hilbert spaces are isomorphic to l^2. A Hilbert space is separable if it has an orthonormal basis. (All the Hilbert spaces I care about are separable.) This and the completeness requirement save us from uniqueness issues.
"Ok, so if they're all the same, what do you mean when you say 'all the Hilbert spaces?' Doesn't that mean there's only one????" Good question, hypothetical person!
"Isomorphic" here means that there's a bijective map that preserves inner products. However, this only says the spaces are the same *as Hilbert spaces.* It still allows for different sorts of objects that may have other properties.
Remember we motivated this by talking about Taylor series?
Take a (complex) holomorphic function on the complex unit disk. Being holomorphic means you can write it as a Taylor series that converges in the disk. If you add in a requirement that the coefficients are square summable, it's what we call a Hardy space function.
Even more exciting, it turns out that there's a way to define the inner product of the Hardy space as a limit of integral means, which gives you the SAME THING.
The Hilbert space structure tells you some things about this space, but because these are *functions*, there are lots of other properties that come with that. (Factorization, multiplier algebras, boundary behavior, etc)
There are also other ways to define inner products for spaces of functions. These function spaces will be isomorphic (as Hilbert spaces) to l^2, but the function theoretic properties will vary.
One way to "tell these apart" is to look at whether or not it's a "Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space" and to look at what the reproducing kernel is.

So next time on #FUNctionalAnalysis, we'll talk about Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces! Get psyched!
Further reading:
An Introduction to Hilbert Space by Nicholas Young
Ryan Tully-Doyle's Hilbert space interactive text: https://t.co/ulX5VK0tbk

More from Math

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.