Suppose p is a computable real so that . It is shown that the halting set can compute a surjective linear isometry between any two computable copies of . It is also shown that this result is optimal in that when there are two computable copies of with the property that any oracle that computes a linear isometry of one onto the other must also compute the halting set. Thus, is -categorical and is computably categorical if and only if . It is also demonstrated that there is a computably categorical Banach space that is not a Hilbert space. These results hold in both the real and complex case.
We start by considering the very general question “Given two computable and linearly isometric Banach spaces, how hard is it to compute a linear isometry from one onto the other?” (Roughly speaking, a Banach space is computable if there are algorithms that compute its scalar multiplication, vector addition, and norm.) We specialize this question to the case of Banach spaces that are linearly isometric to where is a computable real (i.e. a real whose decimal expansion is computable). Our first result is that this is no harder than computing membership in the halting set. Namely, we show that when p is a computable real so that , the halting set is capable of computing a surjective linear isometry between any two computable copies of . Our second result is that this problem is not easier than the halting set. Namely, when p is a computable real so that and , there are two computable copies of so that any oracle that computes a surjective linear isometry from one onto the other must also compute the halting set. It is already known that any two computable copies of are computably linearly isometric [11]. This is essentially due to the fact that is a Hilbert space and mirrors the classical fact that any two infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert spaces are linearly isometric [6].
The first of our two results is based on a sharpening of an inequality due to J. Lamperti which we prove in Section 4. In the main, our second result was previously shown for by Pour-El and Richards [11]. Their proof rests on an observation about the extreme points of the closed unit ball of that does not generalize to when . The proof presented here uses the characterization of the linear isometries of spaces due to S. Banach and J. Lamperti [2,4,7].
Our findings can be recast in the setting of computable categoricity. A mathematical structure is computably categorical if any two of its computable copies are isomorphic via a computable map. A structure is -categorical if the halting set can compute an isomorphism between any two of its computable copies [1,5]. Our results can be interpreted in the setting of computable categoricity by replacing ‘isomorphism’ with ‘surjective linear isometry’; i.e. when p is a computable real so that , is -categorical, and is computably categorical if and only if . The latter resolves a question posed by A.G. Melnikov in 2013 [9].
Although our theorems are proven for the complex version of , they also hold for the real version of .
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 covers background and preliminaries from functional analysis and computable analysis. Section 3 gives an overview of the proof that is -categorical. The remainder of the work is then divided into two parts each corresponding to a different mathematical universe: the classical world (Section 4), wherein we have full access to all the concepts, principles, and methods of classical mathematics, and the computable world (Section 5) wherein we can only see approximations of classical objects and can only access computable operations on these approximations. In Section 6, we use the methods developed in the previous sections to provide simple proofs that there is a computably categorical Banach space that is not a Hilbert space. Section 7 presents concluding remarks.
Background and preliminaries
Background and preliminaries from functional analysis
Throughout this paper, it is assumed that all Banach spaces are Banach spaces over the field of complex numbers .
We begin with some notation and terminology. Let be a Banach space. By a subspace of we will always mean a linear subspace of that is topologically closed. When and , we let denote the set of all linear combinations of vectors in S whose coefficients lie in F; i.e.
The subspace generated by S is the closure of the linear span of S; we denote this by . We say that is a generating set for if it generates all of ; i.e. . For example, let for all (where denotes the characteristic function of A). Then, is a generating set for which we refer to as the standard generating set for . Also, the set of all for is a generating set for .
A map between two Banach spaces is linear if it preserves scalar multiplication and vector addition; it is an isometry (or is isometric) if it preserves the metric induced by the norm; i.e. . Thus, every isometry is injective. An endomorphism of a Banach space is a linear (but not necessarily isometric) map of the space into itself.
When p is a positive number, denotes the space of all functions so that
is a vector space over with the usual scalar multiplication and vector addition. When it is a Banach space under the norm defined by
It is often convenient to view as where μ is the counting measure on .
When , the support of f is the set of all so that ; we denote this set by . If are vectors in so that whenever , then we say that are disjointly supported. Note that if are disjointly supported then .
We now describe a simple numerical test for disjointness of support when . When let:
In 1958, J. Lamperti proved that iff and that the sign of depends only on p. Define to be . Thus, and if and only if f, g are disjointly supported. Note also that is invariant under linear isometries. Thus, every isometric endomorphism of preserves the ‘disjoint support’ relation. That is, if is a linear isometry, then and are disjointly supported whenever are disjointly supported.
When , write if whenever . It follows that ⪯ is a partial order of . Note that the atoms of this partial order are the nonzero scalar multiples of the ’s. Note also that if and only if and f are disjointly supported. Thus, ⪯ is preserved by isometric endomorphisms of .
The proof that is not computably categorical when is based on the following.
(Banach–Lamperti).
Supposeand. Suppose T is an endomorphism of. Then, T is a surjective isometric endomorphism ofif and only if there are unimodular constantsand a permutation of, ϕ, so thatfor all n.
In his seminal text on linear operators, S. Banach stated Theorem 2.1 for the case of spaces over the reals [2]. He also stated a classification of the linear isometries of in the real case. Banach’s proofs of these claims were sketchy and did not easily generalize to the complex case. In 1958, J. Lamperti rigorously proved a generalization of Banach’s claims to real and complex -spaces of σ-finite measures [7]. Theorem 2.1 follows from J. Lamperti’s work as it appears in Theorem 3.2.5 of [4]. Note that Theorem 2.1 fails when . For, is a Hilbert space. So, if is any orthonormal basis for , then there is a unique surjective linear isometry T of so that for all n.
Background and preliminaries from computable analysis
We assume the reader is familiar with the basic notation and terminology of computability theory as expounded in [3]. We cover here the basic notions from computable analysis necessary to understand the results herein. A more expansive treatment can be found in [11,12].
Suppose is a Banach space and is a generating set for . We say that F is an effective generating set for if there is an algorithm that, given any and a nonnegative integer k as input computes a rational number q so that ; less formally, the map is computable. For example, is an effective generating set for , and the standard generating set of is an effective generating set for . On the other hand, if , then is also an effective generating set for , even if ζ is incomputable. We designate and E as the default effective generating sets for and respectively; i.e. when discussing computability on these spaces without mention of an effective generating set it is implicit that we are using the default generating set.
Suppose F is an effective generating set for a Banach space . We say that a vector is computable with respect to F if there is an algorithm that given any nonnegative integer k as input computes a vector so that . Thus a point is computable (with respect to the default generating set) if there is an algorithm that given any as input, produces a rational point q so that . A vector is computable (with respect to the default generating set E) if there is an algorithm that given any as input computes a rational point q so that . On the other hand, if ζ is an incomputable unimodular point, then only the zero vector is computable with respect to both E and .
Suppose is a Banach space. When , and , let denote the open ball with center f and radius r. Suppose F is an effective generating set for . When and r is a positive rational number, we call a rational ball (with respect to F).
Suppose that for each , is an effective generating set for . We say that a map is computable with respect to if there is an algorithm P that meets the following three criteria.
Approximation: Given as input a rational ball with respect to , P either does not halt or produces a rational ball with respect to .
Correctness: If is the output of P on input , then whenever .
Convergence: If V is a neighborhood of , and if U is a neighborhood of f, then f belongs to a rational ball with the property that P halts on and produces a rational ball that is included in U.
When we speak of an algorithm accepting a rational ball as input, we mean that it accepts some representation of the ball such as a code of the sequence and similarly when we say it produces a rational ball as output we mean that it produces codes of the center and radius.
It is well-known that many familiar functions of a complex variable (such as sin, exp) are computable (with respect to the generating set used in the domain and range). Note also that when the ‘multiplication by ζ’ operator on is computable with respect to E and .
A computable Banach space consists of a pair where is a Banach space and F is an effective generating set for . Unless the effective generating set truly requires explicit mention, for the sake of economy of expression we will just refer to ‘the computable Banach space ’.
If and are computable Banach spaces, then we say a map is computable if it is computable with respect to . It easily follows that if is a computable surjective linear isometry, then is also computable.
If and are computable Banach spaces, then is a computable Banach space. Thus, if is a computable Banach space, then vector addition is a computable map from onto and scalar multiplication is a computable map from onto . In addition the norm of is a computable map from into .
Suppose is a computable Banach space. A closed set is c.e. closed if the set of all rational balls that contain a point of C is c.e. An open set is c.e. open if the set of all rational balls included in U is c.e. Suppose is a computable Banach space and is computable. It is well-known that if is c.e. open, then is c.e. open.
The following is ‘folklore’.
Supposeis a computable Banach space andis a computable function with the property thatfor all. Then,is c.e. closed.
The computability notions we have covered are all relativized in the usual way. We now formally state our two main theorems.
Suppose p is a computable real so that. Then, wheneverandare computable Banach spaces that are linearly isometric to, the halting set computes a surjective linear isometry ofonto.
Suppose p is a computable real so thatand. Suppose C is a c.e. set. Then, there is a computable Banach spaceso that C computes a surjective linear isometry ofontoand so that any oracle that computes a surjective linear isometry ofontoalso computes C.
So if we take C to be the halting set in Theorem 2.4, then it follows that the problem of computing a linear isometric map of one computable copy of onto another is at least as hard as computing membership in the halting set.
We close this section by mentioning some related work. A.G. Melnikov and K.M. Ng have investigated computable categoricity questions with regards to the space of continuous functions on the unit interval with the supremum norm. In particular, they have shown that is not computably categorical as a metric space nor as a Banach space [9,10]. The study of computable categoricity for countable structures goes back at least as far as the 1961 work of A.I. Malcev. The text of Ash and Knight has a thorough discussion of the main early results of this line of inquiry [1]. The survey by Fokina, Harizanov, and Melnikov contains a wealth of recent results on computable categoricity and other directions in the countable computable structures program [5].
Overview
The proof of Theorem 2.4 is fairly straightforward. Here, we set forth the key concepts and supporting intermediate results for the proof of Theorem 2.3.
We first reduce the problem to the computation of surjective isometric endomorphisms. Fix a computable real so that . Suppose is a computable Banach space, and suppose T is a linear isometric mapping of onto . Then, is an effective generating set for , and T is computable with respect to . Thus, since inverses of computable surjective linear isometries are computable, the study of computable Banach spaces that are linearly isometric to can be reduced to the study of computability notions on with respect to different generating sets. In particular, to prove Theorem 2.3, it suffices to show that whenever F is an effective generating set for , the halting set computes a surjective isometric endomorphism of with respect to .
Now, suppose , are disjointly supported unit vectors in . Then, there is a unique linear isometric map so that for all n; if the ’s generate , then T is also surjective. Furthermore, if an oracle X computes with respect to an effective generating set F, then X also computes T with respect to . So, to prove Theorem 2.3, it suffices to prove the following.
If p is a computable real so thatand, and if F is an effective generating set for, then with respect to F the halting problem computes a sequence of disjointly supported unit vectors that generate.
Our main tool for producing such a sequence of unit vectors is the concept of a disintegration which we define now. To begin, fix a real . Suppose and . We say that ϕ is a reverse-order homomorphism if whenever are such that . (Recall from Section 2.1 that if and only if whenever .) We say that ϕ is a strong reverse-order homomorphism if it is a reverse-order homomorphism with the additional feature that it maps incomparable nodes to disjointly supported vectors. Accordingly, an injective (strong) reverse-order homomorphism will be called a (strong) reverse-order monomorphism.
Suppose S is a subtree of . When ν is a nonterminal node of S, let denote the set of all children of ν in S. Call a map summative if whenever ν is a nonterminal node of S. A disintegration is a summative strong reverse-order monomorphism whose range generates .
That disintegrations exist is easy to see; e.g. set and set . The challenge is to produce a disintegration that is computable with respect to an effective generating set F (in the sense that there is an algorithm that given a and a computes an so that ). Accordingly, in Section 5, we prove the following.
Ifis a computable real besides 2, and if F is an effective generating set for, then there is a disintegration ofthat is computable with respect to F.
How does possession of a disintegration that is computable with respect to an effective generating set F help us to prove Theorem 3.1? Intuitively, to define we want to use the halting set to compute the limit of as ν descends some carefully chosen branch of S. To see how we choose these branches, we now define the concept of an almost norm-maximizing chain. When ν is a non-root node of , let denote its parent.
Suppose is a disintegration.
If ν is a non-root node of S, then we say ν is an almost norm-maximizing child of if whenever μ is a child of in S.
A chain is almost norm-maximizing if every nonterminal node in has an almost norm-maximizing child in .
Ifis an almost norm-maximizing chain, then the ⪯-infimum ofexists and is eitheror an atom of ⪯. Furthermore,is the limit in thenorm ofas ν traverses the nodes inin increasing order.
Ifis a partition of S into almost norm-maximizing chains, thenare disjointly supported vectors that generate.
Supposeis a disintegration that is computable with respect to an effective generating set F. Then, there is a computable partition of S into c.e. almost norm-maximizing chains.
So, to prove Theorem 3.1 we first compute with respect to F a disintegration , and then compute a partition of S into c.e. almost norm-maximizing chains . Set . Note that is a right-c.e. real. Thus, the halting set computes from n. Since for all , it follows that the halting set computes with respect to F (since for all ). We can also use the halting set to enumerate all values of n for which ; denote these . Then, is a disjointly supported sequence of unit vectors that generates , and the halting set computes with respect to F.
Let us now return to the proof of Theorem 3.2. The idea is to construct a disintegration ϕ via an ascending sequence of partial disintegrations that are computable uniformly with respect to F. Specifically, we define a partial disintegration to be a strong order monomorphism where S is a finite nonempty subtree of . We say a partial disintegration extends a partial disintegration if and if for all .
Let be a generating set for . If F is an effective generating set, then it is quite easy to produce a partial disintegration that is computable with respect to F. Namely, set and . Of course, this partial disintegration does not do much for us and is quite far from being a disintegration. Accordingly, when is a partial disintegration, we define the success index of ψ (with respect to F) to be the largest integer N so that whenever and
whenever ν is a non-root nonterminal node of S.
Here is how we can glue an ascending sequence of partial disintegrations into a disintegration. Suppose is an ascending sequence of partial disintegrations (in the sense that extends ) so that the success index of is larger than n for all n. Set , and set
for all . Set . Then, ψ is a disintegration. Such a chain of partial disintegrations can be obtained by a fairly straightforward application of the following which is proven in Section 5.
Suppose F is an effective generating set forwhereis a computable real besides 2. If, and ifis a partial disintegration that is computable with respect to F, then there exists a mapso thatand so thatextends to a partial disintegration ψ that is computable with respect to F and whose success index with respect to F is larger than N. Furthermore, an index of ψ can be computed from N, k and an index of ϕ.
Classical world
Results on disintegrations and partial disintegrations
The following is a preliminary step to proving Theorem 3.4.
Ifare vectors in, thenexists pointwise and in the-norm and is the ⪯-infimum of.
Let
Set . Since , it follows that g is the pointwise limit of .
We claim that for all t. For, either , or and . By regarding summation as integration with respect to the counting measure, it now follows from the Dominated Convergence Theorem that .
Suppose for all n. Thus, as discussed in Section 2.1, for all n. Since converges to g in the -norm, ; that is . Thus, . □
(1): Suppose is an almost norm-maximizing chain. It follows from Proposition 4.1 that the ⪯-infimum of exists; let g denote this infimum. By way of contradiction, suppose and . Since ϕ maps incomparable nodes to disjointly supported vectors, whenever , the support of contains both and if it contains either one of them. Since ϕ is reverse-order preserving, if and belong to the support of , then and . But, since ϕ is a disintegration, the range of ϕ generates – a contradiction. Thus, g is either or an atom.
(2): Suppose is a partition of S into almost norm-maximizing chains. By part (1), exists for each n; let .
We first claim that for every j, there is a k so that j belongs to the support of . If there is an atom in whose support contains j, then there is nothing to prove. So, suppose j does not belong to the support of any atom in .
We claim that there is a so that and . For otherwise, for all . But, since ϕ is a disintegration, generates – a contradiction.
Since ϕ is a disintegration, if ν is a nonterminal node of S, then . It thus follows by induction that for each s, j belongs to the support of a so that ; since ϕ maps incomparable nodes to disjointly supported vectors, ν is unique and accordingly we denote it by . Let . Again, since ϕ maps incomparable nodes to disjointly supported vectors, for all s. Since ϕ is a reverse-order monomorphism, for all s. Thus, for all s.
Now, for each s, let denote the k so that . We claim that exists. By way of contradiction suppose otherwise. Let be the increasing enumeration of all values of s for which . Since , is a nonterminal node of S. Therefore, since is almost norm-maximizing, it must contain a child of in S; let denote this child and let . Thus, and the supports of and are disjoint (since and are distinct nodes at the same level of S). In addition, since is an almost norm-maximizing child of , . Since , the supports of and are disjoint if . That is to say, whenever . Thus, – a contradiction. Thus, exists, and so j belongs to the support of . Moreover, it follows from part (1) that is a nonzero scalar multiple of . It then follows that generate .
Finally, we claim that are disjointly supported. For, suppose . It suffices to show that there are incomparable nodes ν, so that and . If there is an integer s so that and both contain a node of length s, then we may choose ν and to be these nodes (since ). So, suppose there is no s so that and both contain a node of length s. Let μ be the ⊆-minimal node in and let be the ⊆-minimal node in . Let , and let . Thus, . Without loss of generality, assume . This entails that contains a terminal node of S; let τ denote this node and let . Thus, . Furthermore, . Let denote the length t ancestor of . Since τ is a terminal node of S, τ and are incomparable. Thus, τ and are incomparable. □
For the sake of proving Theorem 3.5, we prove the following existence result.
Ifis a disintegration, and if ν is a nonterminal node of S, thenexists.
Since ϕ is a disintegration, . Since ϕ maps incomparable nodes to disjointly supported vectors it follows that
Therefore, there is a finite set so that
whenever . Thus,
□
For the sake of proving Theorem 3.6, we prove the following existence theorem; Theorem 3.6 will then be demonstrated by a search procedure. Recall that the success index of a partial disintegration, which was defined in Section 3, measures how close a partial disintegration is to being a disintegration.
Supposeis a generating set for. Ifis a partial disintegration, and if, then ϕ extends to a partial disintegration ψ whose success index (with respect to F) is larger than.
There is a nonnegative integer so that whenever and so that whenever .
When , let if ; otherwise let denote the ⊆-maximal node in S so that .
Intuitively, we define ψ so that its range includes nonzero scalar multiples of each of . We first define the domain of ψ. Let
(Here, denotes the cardinality of A, and denotes concatenation.) Let if . Suppose . Let
Thus, by construction, ψ is a partial disintegration, and ψ extends ϕ.
We claim that the success index of ψ is at least as large as . For, by construction, . Thus, by choice of , whenever . Suppose ν is a nonterminal node of . Thus, by definition of , . We show that
Since , . By choice of , . By definition of , whenever and , k belongs to the support of for some child of ν in ; furthermore . The inequality (1) follows. □
On the distance to the nearest strong reverse-order homomorphism
Let S be a finite nonempty subset of . Define to be the space of all functions that map S into . When , define to be . Thus, is a norm on under which is a Banach space.
Suppose is a partial disintegration, and let be a finite subtree of . Define to be the set of all strong reverse-order homomorphisms so that whenever ν is a non-root node of S. Thus, is a closed subset of . For the sake of a search procedure we will employ in the proof of Theorem 3.6, we wish to find a reasonable upper bound on in terms of ϕ, ψ.
When , set . When set . As a first step toward bounding above, we prove the following sharpening of an inequality due to J. Lamperti [7].
Supposeand. Then,for all. Furthermore, if, thenand ifthen
Without loss of generality, assume . Set where . Then, (2) reduces to
This leads to consideration of the function
We show that
We note that . So, we restrict attention to values of θ between 0 and π. We use basic multivariable calculus to minimize in the region . To this end, we first note that
and that
It follows that when :
The signs are reversed when .
So, when and ,
We now claim that when . We first consider the case . We have
Since and , . Thus, . The case is symmetric; the signs are merely reversed and .
We next claim that if . We first consider the case . In this case the claim reduces to
Since , is concave. Thus,
This verifies the claim when . The case is symmetric: signs are reversed and the function is convex.
Thus, if .
So, let , and let R denote the rectangle . It follows from what has just been shown that the minimum of on R is achieved on the lower line segment . Moreover, it is achieved at one of the points , , . and . Since , it follows that . Thus, the minimum of on R is . Since can be any number larger than 1, the minimum of on is .
The theorem now follows. □
When , set
where ν, range over all nodes of S and denotes that ν and are incomparable. Note that is continuous and if and only if ψ is a strong order homomorphism. The following is the main result of this subsection.
Supposeis a partial disintegration. Supposewhereis a finite subtree ofso that each node inextends a node in S. Then,
Let . Set
where ν, range over the nodes of . Thus, by Theorem 4.4, .
We now construct . If , set . If , and if , set
By construction is a reverse-order homomorphism. We show it is a strong reverse-order homomorphism. Suppose are incomparable. Since is a reverse-order homomorphism, it suffices to consider the case where . Suppose . Then, . So, . Thus, . Hence, . Thus, and are disjointly supported.
If , then . Suppose . Let . It suffices to show that . We first consider the case . We can assume . Thus, there exists so that ; take the least such μ. Therefore . On the other hand, . Therefore, . Now, suppose . Then, . Let denote the maximum prefix of ν that belongs to S or has length 1. Then, . However, . □
We note that the hypothesis that each node of extends a node in S is not superfluous. For, let . Choose so that . Let , and let . Let , and let . If is a strong reverse-order homomorphism that extends ϕ, then .
Suppose is a disintegration that is computable with respect to F. Since ϕ is computable, S is c.e.; fix a computable enumeration of S, . We can choose this enumeration so that each is a finite subtree of .
It suffices to show that from a nonterminal node we can compute an almost-norm maximizing child of μ in S. We base the proof of this claim on a sequence of lemmas as follows. When , let abbreviate .
If ν is a non-root and nonterminal node of S, then there are infinitely many numbers t so thatWhen t is such a number,
By Proposition 4.2, there is a so that
Since ϕ is a disintegration, and
Thus, there are infinitely many numbers t so that (3) holds.
Now, suppose t is a number so that (3) holds. By way of contradiction, suppose . Therefore,
Since but , it follows that is incomparable with every node in . So, since ϕ maps incomparable nodes to disjointly supported vectors,
This is a contradiction. Therefore, . □
Since ϕ is computable with respect to F, is computable. So, there is a computable function so that . Set:
Thus, is a lower bound on , and is an upper bound on . is a lower bound on , and is a lower bound on . Also is an upper bound on .
Suppose ν is a non-root and nonterminal node of S. Then, there are infinitely many stages t so that. At such a stage t,
Let . By Lemma 5.1, there is a stage so that
Set . Then,
and,
So, there is a number so that
By definition, . Since , . Thus, .
Now, suppose . By definition of M, , m,
and
So, by Lemma 5.1,
Furthermore,
This proves the lemma. □
Now, suppose μ is a nonterminal node of S. Search for so that
Then, find so that . Therefore,
Thus, τ is an almost norm-maximizing child of μ in S.
Suppose is an effective generating set for . Let denote the set of all maps from S into F. It follows that is an effective generating set for ; i.e. is a computable Banach space. Furthermore, coincides with the set of all maps from S into .
We now introduce some notation. Suppose is a finite subtree of that includes S. Let:
Let denote the set of all so that
whenever ν is a non-root and nonterminal node of .
If each node ofextends a node of S, thenis c.e. closed uniformly in ϕ,.
The sets,,are c.e. open uniformly in S,, N.
(1): When , set
Therefore, if and only if . By Theorem 4.5, . Since are computable, is computable. Thus, by Proposition 2.2, is c.e. closed.
(2): When , let
Therefore, is computable with respect to . Since, , is c.e. open.
When , let denote the minimum of
as ν ranges over the nonterminal non-root nodes of . It follows that is computable with respect to and so is c.e. open.
Note that if and only if there exists so that
whenever . When , set
Thus, . Set
Therefore, . Hence, is c.e. open uniformly in , N, β. Thus, is c.e. open uniformly in , N. □
For the moment, fix a finite tree . When , let denote the canonical projection of onto , and let
By Theorem 4.3, there is an so that . Such an can be found by an effective search procedure. Since is c.e. closed, it follows that contains a vector ψ that is computable with respect to and an index of ψ can be computed from k, N, and an index of ϕ. □
Let .
Set . Compute so that . Set . By Lemma 5.3, we can compute a so that each map in is injective and never zero.
It now follows from Theorem 3.6 and Lemma 5.3 that there is a sequence of computable partial disintegrations of and a sequence of nonnegative integers that have the following properties.
An index of and a canonical index of can be computed from n.
If , then and .
Each map in is injective, never zero, and has a success index that is at least n.
Let for all . It follows that is computable with respect to ; furthermore, an index of this sequence can be computed from n. It also follows that . Thus, is computable with respect to ; furthermore, an index of can be computed from n. Also, . Thus, is a partial disintegration whose success index is at least n. By definition, . Thus, . Let .
Let . For each , let
Then, let
Since S is computable, it follows that is a computable with respect to F. It then follows that ψ is a disintegration and is computable with respect to F. □
Suppose p is a computable real so that and , and assume C is a c.e. set. Again, we can reduce to the consideration of surjective linear endomorphisms of . Specifically, it suffices to show there is an effective generating set F for so that, with respect to , C computes a surjective linear endomorphism of and so that any oracle that with respect to computes a surjective linear endomorphism of also computes C. We demonstrate this as follows.
We can assume C is incomputable. Without loss of generality, we also assume . Let be a one-to-one effective enumeration of C. Set
Thus, , and γ is an incomputable real. Set:
Since , we can use the standard branch of . We divide the rest of the proof into a sequence of lemmas.
F is an effective generating set.
Since
the closed linear span of F includes E. Thus, F is a generating set for . Note that .
Suppose are rational points. When , set
It follows that
Since can be computed from , can be computed from . Thus, F is an effective generating set. □
Every oracle that with respect to F computes a unimodular scalar multiple ofmust also compute C.
Suppose that with respect to F, X computes a vector of the form where . It suffices to show that X computes .
Fix a rational number so that . Let be given as input. Compute so that . Since X computes with respect to F, we can use oracle X to compute rational points so that
We claim that . For, it follows from (4) that . Thus, . Hence,
Since X computes from k, X computes . □
If X computes a surjective isometric endomorphism ofwith respect to, then X must also compute C.
Let T be a surjective endomorphism of , and suppose X computes T with respect to . By Theorem 2.1, there exists , λ so that and . So, by Lemma 5.5, X computes C. □
With respect to F, C computes.
Fix an integer M so that .
Let . Using oracle C, we can compute an integer so that and
We can use oracle C to compute a rational number so that . Set
It suffices to show that . Note that since , . Note also that . Thus,
Thus, . This completes the proof of the lemma. □
With respect to, C computes a surjective linear isometry of.
By Lemma 5.7, C computes with respect to F. Thus, C computes with respect to F, and it follows that C computes the identity map with respect to . □
Additional results
Suppose n is a positive integer and . Define to be the set of all so that whenever ; i.e. . Thus, is a subspace of , and is an effective generating set for . Now, suppose p is computable and . Let F be an effective generating set for . Via the methods of the previous section, we can show that there are disjointly supported unit vectors so that each is computable with respect to F. Thus, generate . It then follows that is computably categorical. However, since , is not a Hilbert space. Thus, there is a computably categorical Banach space that is not a Hilbert space.
Conclusion
To summarize, we have investigated the complexity of isometries between computable copies of . We have shown that the halting set bounds the complexity of computing these isometries and that this bound is optimal. Along the way we have strengthened an important inequality due to J. Lamperti. These results stand as a contribution to the emergent program of grafting computable structure theory onto computable analysis. It is anticipated that there will be many other interesting discoveries in this area and that the proofs will present opportunities to blend methods from classical analysis and computability theory.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I thank Joe Cima, Johanna Franklin, Xiang Huang, and Don Stull for helpful and inspiring conversation. I also thank the anonymous referees for frankly sharing many helpful suggestions for improving the style of the paper. This work was supported by a Simons Foundation Collaboration Grant for Mathematicians.
References
1.
C.J.Ash and J.Knight, Computable Structures and the Hyperarithmetical Hierarchy, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 144, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 2000.
2.
S.Banach, Theory of Linear Operations, North-Holland Mathematical Library, Vol. 38, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987, Translated from the French by F. Jellett, With comments by A. Pełczyński and Cz. Bessaga.
R.J.Fleming and J.E.Jamison, Isometries on Banach Spaces: Function Spaces, Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 129, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2003.
5.
E.B.Fokina, V.Harizanov and A.G.Melnikov, Computable model theory, in: Turing’s Legacy: Developments from Turing’s Ideas in Logic, R.Downey, ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014.
6.
P.R.Halmos, Introduction to Hilbert Space and the Theory of Spectral Multiplicity, AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 1998, Reprint of the second (1957) edition.
7.
J.Lamperti, On the isometries of certain function-spaces, Pacific J. Math.8 (1958), 459–466. doi:10.2140/pjm.1958.8.459.
8.
T.H.McNicholl, A note on the computable categoricity of ℓp spaces, in: Evolving Computability, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., Vol. 9136, Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 268–275.
9.
A.G.Melnikov, Computably isometric spaces, J. Symbolic Logic78(4) (2013), 1055–1085. doi:10.2178/jsl.7804030.
10.
A.G.Melnikov and K.M.Ng, Computable structures and operations on the space of continuous functions, Fundamenta Mathematicae233(2) (2014), 1–41.
11.
M.B.Pour-El and J.I.Richards, Computability in Analysis and Physics, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
12.
K.Weihrauch, Computable Analysis, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.