Another Characterization of Inner Product Spaces Author(s): W. A. Kirk and M. F.

Smiley Reviewed work(s): Source: The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 71, No. 8 (Oct., 1964), pp. 890-891 Published by: Mathematical Association of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2312400 . Accessed: 08/04/2012 12:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Mathematical Association of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Mathematical Monthly.

http://www.jstor.org

890

MATHEMATICAL NOTES

[October

ANOTHER CHARACTERIZATION OF INNER PRODUCT SPACES W. A. KIRK

AND

M. F.

SMILEY, Universityof California,Riverside

In a recentnumberof this MONTHLY Dunkl and Williams [1 ] prove that if x and y are vectors in a normedlinear space, then (1)

IIxIIy IIyIIx IIYII 11; 411xll ITx yll - (Ilxsl + SIYIy)II

while if x and y are vectors of an innerproductspace, then

(2)

+ 2ixii liX Yll (iIXii IIyII)II - IyJxJII1. lixily IIYII - >?

Dunkl and Williams raise the question whether(2) characterizesinnerproduct spaces. E. R. Lorch [2 ] gave the following conditionon a normedlinearspace
X :

a. numbers

= (L) If x, yGX and l|xii lIyII thenlx+a-1x+yii ?IIx+yII all positivereal for

Lorch showed that (L) holds if X is an inner product space. Replacing x = and using |lxii lylfl easily verifies one and y by ax, -a'ly, respectively that (2) implies (L). Since Dunkl and Williams proved (2) in an inner product space, it is clear that (2) holds in a normed linear space X iffX is an inner product space. The question of equality in (1), (2) was also raised by Dunkl and Williams. of A slight rearrangement their proofshows that equality holds in (1) iffx = 0, y=O, or x=y. For

(3) (4)
(5)

< + I 11 llylix llxllyll lisl{llix - Y11 I IIYII IIXlI }.

I }X 1i - 11ilyll Ilyll - Yf+I I IIYII ffxjI flylix {iix I IIYII- IIXIII < IIX - YIIX

hence |ix-Yi = iff

We easily see that equality holds in (1) iffequality holds in (3), (4), and (5); with 3=Jfx-yjj iIIYII I andililylix-lixiyl =1 yf0=f31xil -||x|

is clear. Finally, we note that equality holds in (2) iffx=0, y=0, l|xi I=IIyii, or = 0. This may be proved by the usual squaring process (cf. [31). xiIyi I+yIixIi From (3), (4), and (5) one may obtain slightlymore than (1), i.e.,

for x, +1 iyIIY I; which -lixil yields, nonzero y, lxi ly and x=y. The converse | I

(6)

max(iixii, ? 2iix11 lix Y|I, iIYII) iIYi | ||y|ix- iixi|y||

an inequalitydue to J. L. Massera and J. J. Schaffer[Annals of Math. 67 (1958) p. 538]. One cannot replace the 2 of (6) by 1 even in an innerproduct space. In a letterto the editor,Professor observes that in an innerproduct space Schaffer it is possible to replace the 2 of (6) by anythinggreaterthan 1 foriix-Yii suffiand that this propertycharacterizesinner cientlysmall compared to |xi|I IyIf, product spaces of dimensionat least three. ProfessorSchafferplans to publish

1964]

MATHEMATICAL NOTES

891

this resultin anotherjournal. Conditionsforequality in (6) seem difficult obto tain.

Research donewhileM. F. Smiley held NSF GrantGP1447. References 1. C. F. Dunkland K. S. Williams, simple A norm inequality, MONTHLY, 71 (1964) 53-54. this 2. E. R. Lorch, certainimplications On whichcharacterize Hilbert space,Ann.of Math.,49 (1948) 523-532. 3. M. F. Smiley, The proof thetriangle of this inequality, MONTHLY, 70 (1963) 546. Editorial Note.The questions raisedby Dunkland Williams to werealso answered letters in Prof.Williams Gary H. Meisters, by University Colorado,Donald A. Sarason,Institute of for AdvancedStudy,and by JamesP. Crawford, Lafayette College.

PERIODS OF MEASURABLE FUNCTIONS AND THE STONE-6ECH COMPACTIFICATION

Z. SEMADENI, Poznafi, Poland

1. Periods of measurable functions.A number T is called a period of a function definedfor - oo <t < oo iff(t+ T) =f(t) forall t. Obviously, the set of f all periods off is an additive subgroup of the reals and forany periodicfunction we have two possibilities:Either thereexists the smallest positive period To and all periods are of the formnTo with n = 0, ? 1, ? 2, * - * or the set of periods is dense. We have two typical examples of functionswith dense set of periods: the characteristicfunctionof the set of rationals and the function f(x) -(x) -4(1)x, where $ is any nonmeasurableHamel solution of the equation q(x+y) =4(x) +4(y); in both cases any rational numberis a period. Obviously, a continuous functionwith dense set of periods must be constant. There exist a nonconstant measurable functionwith an uncountable set of periods and a measurable functionwith Darboux propertyand a countable dense set of periods (cf. [4] pp. 833-836). theoremdue The purposeofthis note is to give a simpleproofofthe following to A. Lomnicki ([4], Theorem 5). THEOREM1. If a measurable functionhas a denseset ofperiods,thenit is constantalmosteverywhere. The proofis founded on the following well-known thenthelimit
LEMMA. If T is a

functionandfo' (t) dt< oo, f positive period a measurable of If

9(f)-=

1 f2 lim_ f(t)dt X 2x

existsand is equal to T-1fTf(t)dt.