DOCSLIB.ORG

MAT 314 LECTURE NOTES 1. Analysis on Metric

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MAT 314 LECTURE NOTES 1. Analysis on Metric MAT 314 LECTURE NOTES 1. Analysis on metric spaces 1.1. Definitions, and open sets. A metric space is, essentially, a set of points together with a rule for saying how far apart two such points are: Definition 1.1. A metric space consists of a set X together with a function d: X × X ! R such that: (1) For each x; y 2 X, d(x; y) ≥ 0, and d(x; y) = 0 if and only if x = y. (2) For each x; y 2 X, d(x; y) = d(y; x). (3) For each x; y; z 2 X, d(x; z) ≤ d(x; y) + d(y; z). The last condition is known as the triangle inequality. If we think of d(x; y) as representing, say, the smallest possible amount of time that it takes to get from x to y, the triangle inequality should make sense, since one way of getting from x to z is to first go from x to y and then from y to z, and doing this can take as little time as d(x; y) + d(y; z). Of course, it will often be the case that the quickest path from x to z doesn't pass through y, in which case the inequality will be strict. The first part of the course is concerned with developing notions like convergence and continuity in the context of a general metric space (X; d). You've probably already had some exposure to these concepts at least in the context of the real numbers, which indeed are the first example: Example 1.2. Take X = R, and define d(x; y) = jx−yj. It should be fairly obvious that the three axioms for a metric space are satisfied in this case. If you've had a good real analysis course, then a lot (though not all) of the proofs below should look somewhat familiar, essentially with absolute value signs replaced by `d's. Example 1.3. If X = Rn, there are actually many metrics d that we can use which generalize the absolute value metric on R. The most famous of these is surely n !1=2 X 2 d2((x1; : : : ; xn); (y1; : : : ; yn)) = (xi − yi) ; i=1 which gives the distance from (x1; : : : ; xn) to (y1; : : : ; yn) that is dictated by the Pythagorean theorem. Although (in view of the Pythagorean theorem) d2 seems like a very natu- ral sort of distance, the triangle inequality for it isn't completely obvious, but rather depends on the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, which states that, where for n ~v = (v1; : : : ; vn); ~w = (w1; : : : ; wn) 2 R we write n X h~v; ~wi = viwi; i=1 one has h~v; ~wi2 ≤ h~v;~vih~w; ~wi: 1 2 MAT 314 LECTURE NOTES Proof of the triangle inequality for d2, assuming the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. We have 2 d2(~x;~z) = h~x − ~z; ~x − ~zi = h(~x − ~y) + (~y − ~z); (~x − ~y) + (~y − ~z)i = h~x − ~y; ~x − ~yi + 2h~x − ~y; ~y − ~zi + h~y − ~z; ~y − ~zi ≤ h~x − ~y; ~x − ~yi + 2 (h~x − ~y; ~x − ~yih~y − ~z; ~y − ~zi)1=2 + h~y − ~z; ~y − ~zi 2 2 2 = d2(~x;~y) + 2d2(~x;~y)d2(~y; ~z) + d2(~y; ~z) = (d2(~x;~y) + d2(~y; ~z)) ; and then taking the square root of both sides implies the triangle inequality. Proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. If either ~v or ~w is the zero vector, then both sides of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (h~v; ~wi2 ≤ h~v;~vih~w; ~wi) are zero, so it holds in that case. So let us assume that ~v and ~w are both nonzero, so we can form the vectors 1 1 ~v0 = ~v; ~w0 = ~w; h~v;~vi1=2 h~w; ~wi1=2 which satisfy h~v0;~v0i = h~w0 ~w0i = 1: Notice that 0 ≤ h~v0 ± ~w0;~v0 ± ~w0i = h~v0;~v0i ± 2h~v0; ~w0i + h~w; ~wi = 2 ± 2h~v0; ~w0i; i.e., ±h~v0; ~w0i ≤ 1 = h~v0;~v0ih~w0 ~w0i: Now square this last equation and then multiply it by h~v;~vih~w; ~wi to get the desired inequality h~v; ~wi2 ≤ h~v;~vih~w; ~wi: Example 1.4. Here are two examples of metrics on Rn for which the triangle inequality is more obvious than for the standard Pythagorean distance d2: n X d1(~x;~y) = jxi − yij; i=1 d1(~x;~y) = max jxi − yij: 1≤i≤n The first of these, d1, is colloquially known as the \taxicab metric" (why?). Note that each of d1; d2; d1 specializes to the usual absolute value metric when n = 1. In fact, there's an infinite family of metrics n !1=p X p dp(~x;~y) = jxi − yij ; i=1 defined for any real number p ≥ 1. The triangle inequality for these follows from a generalization of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality called the Minkowski inequality, which we'll see later on in the course. Also later in the course (perhaps in a problem set) we'll prove that lim dp(~x;~y) = d1(~x;~y); p!1 which explains the notation for d1. MAT 314 LECTURE NOTES 3 Of course, for 0 < p < 1 one could try to define a metric dp by the same formula above, but it turns out that for those values of p the \triangle inequality" would point in the wrong direction. n Although there are many metrics on R , d2 is generally the one that is used unless explicit mention otherwise is made. Example 1.5. Let [a; b] be any closed interval in R. I hope that you're familiar with the fact that if h:[a; b] ! R is a continuous function then there is some x0 2 [a; b] such that h(x0) = max h(x) x2[a;b] (if you're not, we'll be proving a generalization of this fact later on). In light of this, where X = C([a; b]) := ff :[a; b] ! Rjf is continuousg; we can define a metric on X by d(f; g) = max jf(x) − g(x)j: x2[a;b] (Check for yourself that this is indeed a metric.) As this example illustrates, metric space concepts apply not just to spaces whose elements are thought of as geometric points, but also sometimes to spaces of func- tions. Indeed, one of the major tasks later in the course, when we discuss Lebesgue integration theory, will be to understand convergence in various metric spaces of functions. In calculus on R, a fundamental role is played by those subsets of R which are intervals. The analogues of open intervals in general metric spaces are the following: Definition 1.6. If (X; d) is a metric space, p 2 X, and r > 0, the open ball of radius r around p is Br(p) = fq 2 Xjd(p; q) < rg: Exercise 1.7. In R2, draw a picture of the open ball of radius 1 around the origin in the metrics d2, d1, and d1. One of the biggest themes of the whole unit on metric spaces in this course is that a major role is played by the following kinds of sets: Definition 1.8. If (X; d) is a metric space and U ⊂ X, U is called an open subset of X if, for every p 2 U, there is some > 0 such that B(p) ⊂ U: (Of course, will typically depend on p.) Fortunately, the terminology in the previous two definitions is consistent, be- cause: Proposition 1.9. If (X; d) is a metric space, every open ball Br(p) is an open subset of X. Proof. Let p 2 X and r > 0. We need to show that if q 2 Br(p) then some open ball B(q)( > 0) around q is contained in Br(p). Now by the definition of Br(p), 4 MAT 314 LECTURE NOTES the fact that q 2 Br(p) means that d(p; q) < r, so if we set = r − d(p; q) we have > 0: If x 2 B(q), then the triangle inequality shows d(p; x) ≤ d(p; q) + d(q; x) < d(p; q) + = r; and so x 2 Br(p). Thus B(q) ⊂ Br(p), as desired. Open balls are conceptually fairly simple, but they don't behave very well when you apply set-theoretic operations to them (for instance the union of two open balls is only rarely an open ball). The more general notion of an open set is better in this regard. Lemma 1.10. Let (X; d) be a metric space. (i) If fUαjα 2 Ag is any collection of open sets in X, then [ Uα α2A is open. (ii) If fU1;:::;Ung is a finite collection of open sets in X, then n \i=1Ui is an open set. Proof. For (i), if x 2 [α2AUα, then for some β 2 A we have x 2 Uβ (this is just the definition of the union of a collection of sets). Since Uβ is open, we have B(x) ⊂ Uβ for some > 0. But of course Uβ ⊂ [α2AUα, so this shows that B(x) ⊂ [α2AUα: Since x was an arbitrary element of [α2AUα, this completes the proof of (i). n As for (ii), if x 2 \i=1Ui, then for each i there is i > 0 such that Bi (x) ⊂ Ui. Let = min i: 1≤i≤n Then (since there are only finitely many i!) > 0, and we have, for each i, B(x) ⊂ Bi (x) ⊂ Ui; so that n B(x) ⊂ \i=1Ui: Note the asymmetry between unions and intersections here; arbitrary unions of open sets are open, but we can only say that finite intersections of open sets are open.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metric Geometry in a Tame Setting
    University of California Los Angeles Metric Geometry in a Tame Setting A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics by Erik Walsberg 2015 c Copyright by Erik Walsberg 2015 Abstract of the Dissertation Metric Geometry in a Tame Setting by Erik Walsberg Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Los Angeles, 2015 Professor Matthias J. Aschenbrenner, Chair We prove basic results about the topology and metric geometry of metric spaces which are definable in o-minimal expansions of ordered fields. ii The dissertation of Erik Walsberg is approved. Yiannis N. Moschovakis Chandrashekhar Khare David Kaplan Matthias J. Aschenbrenner, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2015 iii To Sam. iv Table of Contents 1 Introduction :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 2 Conventions :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5 3 Metric Geometry ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 7 3.1 Metric Spaces . 7 3.2 Maps Between Metric Spaces . 8 3.3 Covers and Packing Inequalities . 9 3.3.1 The 5r-covering Lemma . 9 3.3.2 Doubling Metrics . 10 3.4 Hausdorff Measures and Dimension . 11 3.4.1 Hausdorff Measures . 11 3.4.2 Hausdorff Dimension . 13 3.5 Topological Dimension . 15 3.6 Left-Invariant Metrics on Groups . 15 3.7 Reductions, Ultralimits and Limits of Metric Spaces . 16 3.7.1 Reductions of Λ-valued Metric Spaces . 16 3.7.2 Ultralimits . 17 3.7.3 GH-Convergence and GH-Ultralimits . 18 3.7.4 Asymptotic Cones . 19 3.7.5 Tangent Cones . 22 3.7.6 Conical Metric Spaces . 22 3.8 Normed Spaces . 23 4 T-Convexity :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 24 4.1 T-convex Structures .
    [Show full text]
  • Duality for Outer $ L^ P \Mu (\Ell^ R) $ Spaces and Relation to Tent Spaces
    p r DUALITY FOR OUTER Lµpℓ q SPACES AND RELATION TO TENT SPACES MARCO FRACCAROLI p r Abstract. We prove that the outer Lµpℓ q spaces, introduced by Do and Thiele, are isomorphic to Banach spaces, and we show the expected duality properties between them for 1 ă p ď8, 1 ď r ă8 or p “ r P t1, 8u uniformly in the finite setting. In the case p “ 1, 1 ă r ď8, we exhibit a counterexample to uniformity. We show that in the upper half space setting these properties hold true in the full range 1 ď p,r ď8. These results are obtained via greedy p r decompositions of functions in Lµpℓ q. As a consequence, we establish the p p r equivalence between the classical tent spaces Tr and the outer Lµpℓ q spaces in the upper half space. Finally, we give a full classification of weak and strong type estimates for a class of embedding maps to the upper half space with a fractional scale factor for functions on Rd. 1. Introduction The Lp theory for outer measure spaces discussed in [13] generalizes the classical product, or iteration, of weighted Lp quasi-norms. Since we are mainly interested in positive objects, we assume every function to be nonnegative unless explicitly stated. We first focus on the finite setting. On the Cartesian product X of two finite sets equipped with strictly positive weights pY,µq, pZ,νq, we can define the classical product, or iterated, L8Lr,LpLr spaces for 0 ă p, r ă8 by the quasi-norms 1 r r kfkL8ppY,µq,LrpZ,νqq “ supp νpzqfpy,zq q yPY zÿPZ ´1 r 1 “ suppµpyq ωpy,zqfpy,zq q r , yPY zÿPZ p 1 r r p kfkLpppY,µq,LrpZ,νqq “ p µpyqp νpzqfpy,zq q q , arXiv:2001.05903v1 [math.CA] 16 Jan 2020 yÿPY zÿPZ where we denote by ω “ µ b ν the induced weight on X.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis in Metric Spaces Mario Bonk, Luca Capogna, Piotr Hajłasz, Nageswari Shanmugalingam, and Jeremy Tyson
    Analysis in Metric Spaces Mario Bonk, Luca Capogna, Piotr Hajłasz, Nageswari Shanmugalingam, and Jeremy Tyson study of quasiconformal maps on such boundaries moti- The authors of this piece are organizers of the AMS vated Heinonen and Koskela [HK98] to axiomatize several 2020 Mathematics Research Communities summer aspects of Euclidean quasiconformal geometry in the set- conference Analysis in Metric Spaces, one of five ting of metric measure spaces and thereby extend Mostow’s topical research conferences offered this year that are work beyond the sub-Riemannian setting. The ground- focused on collaborative research and professional breaking work [HK98] initiated the modern theory of anal- development for early-career mathematicians. ysis on metric spaces. Additional information can be found at https://www Analysis on metric spaces is nowadays an active and in- .ams.org/programs/research-communities dependent field, bringing together researchers from differ- /2020MRC-MetSpace. Applications are open until ent parts of the mathematical spectrum. It has far-reaching February 15, 2020. applications to areas as diverse as geometric group the- ory, nonlinear PDEs, and even theoretical computer sci- The subject of analysis, more specifically, first-order calcu- ence. As a further sign of recognition, analysis on met- lus, in metric measure spaces provides a unifying frame- ric spaces has been included in the 2010 MSC classifica- work for ideas and questions from many different fields tion as a category (30L: Analysis on metric spaces). In this of mathematics. One of the earliest motivations and ap- short survey, we can discuss only a small fraction of areas plications of this theory arose in Mostow’s work [Mos73], into which analysis on metric spaces has expanded.
    [Show full text]
  • Superadditive and Subadditive Transformations of Integrals and Aggregation Functions
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Portsmouth University Research Portal (Pure) Superadditive and subadditive transformations of integrals and aggregation functions Salvatore Greco⋆12, Radko Mesiar⋆⋆34, Fabio Rindone⋆⋆⋆1, and Ladislav Sipeky†3 1 Department of Economics and Business 95029 Catania, Italy 2 University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Centre of Operations Research and Logistics (CORL), Richmond Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth PO1 3DE, United Kingdom 3 Department of Mathematics and Descriptive Geometry, Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak University of Technology 810 05 Bratislava, Slovakia 4 Institute of Theory of Information and Automation Czech Academy of Sciences Prague, Czech Republic Abstract. We propose the concepts of superadditive and of subadditive trans- formations of aggregation functions acting on non-negative reals, in particular of integrals with respect to monotone measures. We discuss special properties of the proposed transforms and links between some distinguished integrals. Superaddi- tive transformation of the Choquet integral, as well as of the Shilkret integral, is shown to coincide with the corresponding concave integral recently introduced by Lehrer. Similarly the transformation of the Sugeno integral is studied. Moreover, subadditive transformation of distinguished integrals is also discussed. Keywords: Aggregation function; superadditive and subadditive transformations; fuzzy integrals. 1 Introduction The concepts of subadditivity and superadditivity are very important in economics. For example, consider a production function A : Rn R assigning to each vector of pro- + → + duction factors x = (x1,...,xn) the corresponding output A(x1,...,xn). If one has available resources given by the vector x =(x1,..., xn), then, the production function A assigns the output A(x1,..., xn).
    [Show full text]
  • A Mini-Introduction to Information Theory
    A Mini-Introduction To Information Theory Edward Witten School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540 USA Abstract This article consists of a very short introduction to classical and quantum information theory. Basic properties of the classical Shannon entropy and the quantum von Neumann entropy are described, along with related concepts such as classical and quantum relative entropy, conditional entropy, and mutual information. A few more detailed topics are considered in the quantum case. arXiv:1805.11965v5 [hep-th] 4 Oct 2019 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Classical Information Theory 2 2.1 ShannonEntropy ................................... .... 2 2.2 ConditionalEntropy ................................. .... 4 2.3 RelativeEntropy .................................... ... 6 2.4 Monotonicity of Relative Entropy . ...... 7 3 Quantum Information Theory: Basic Ingredients 10 3.1 DensityMatrices .................................... ... 10 3.2 QuantumEntropy................................... .... 14 3.3 Concavity ......................................... .. 16 3.4 Conditional and Relative Quantum Entropy . ....... 17 3.5 Monotonicity of Relative Entropy . ...... 20 3.6 GeneralizedMeasurements . ...... 22 3.7 QuantumChannels ................................... ... 24 3.8 Thermodynamics And Quantum Channels . ...... 26 4 More On Quantum Information Theory 27 4.1 Quantum Teleportation and Conditional Entropy . ......... 28 4.2 Quantum Relative Entropy And Hypothesis Testing . ......... 32 4.3 Encoding
    [Show full text]
  • Metric Spaces We Have Talked About the Notion of Convergence in R
    Mathematics Department Stanford University Math 61CM – Metric spaces We have talked about the notion of convergence in R: Definition 1 A sequence an 1 of reals converges to ` R if for all " > 0 there exists N N { }n=1 2 2 such that n N, n N implies an ` < ". One writes lim an = `. 2 ≥ | − | With . the standard norm in Rn, one makes the analogous definition: k k n n Definition 2 A sequence xn 1 of points in R converges to x R if for all " > 0 there exists { }n=1 2 N N such that n N, n N implies xn x < ". One writes lim xn = x. 2 2 ≥ k − k One important consequence of the definition in either case is that limits are unique: Lemma 1 Suppose lim xn = x and lim xn = y. Then x = y. Proof: Suppose x = y.Then x y > 0; let " = 1 x y .ThusthereexistsN such that n N 6 k − k 2 k − k 1 ≥ 1 implies x x < ", and N such that n N implies x y < ". Let n = max(N ,N ). Then k n − k 2 ≥ 2 k n − k 1 2 x y x x + x y < 2" = x y , k − kk − nk k n − k k − k which is a contradiction. Thus, x = y. ⇤ Note that the properties of . were not fully used. What we needed is that the function d(x, y)= k k x y was non-negative, equal to 0 only if x = y,symmetric(d(x, y)=d(y, x)) and satisfied the k − k triangle inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Distance Metric Learning, with Application to Clustering with Side-Information
    Distance metric learning, with application to clustering with side-information Eric P. Xing, Andrew Y. Ng, Michael I. Jordan and Stuart Russell University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720 epxing,ang,jordan,russell ¡ @cs.berkeley.edu Abstract Many algorithms rely critically on being given a good metric over their inputs. For instance, data can often be clustered in many “plausible” ways, and if a clustering algorithm such as K-means initially fails to find one that is meaningful to a user, the only recourse may be for the user to manually tweak the metric until sufficiently good clusters are found. For these and other applications requiring good metrics, it is desirable that we provide a more systematic way for users to indicate what they con- sider “similar.” For instance, we may ask them to provide examples. In this paper, we present an algorithm that, given examples of similar (and, if desired, dissimilar) pairs of points in ¢¤£ , learns a distance metric over ¢¥£ that respects these relationships. Our method is based on posing met- ric learning as a convex optimization problem, which allows us to give efficient, local-optima-free algorithms. We also demonstrate empirically that the learned metrics can be used to significantly improve clustering performance. 1 Introduction The performance of many learning and datamining algorithms depend critically on their being given a good metric over the input space. For instance, K-means, nearest-neighbors classifiers and kernel algorithms such as SVMs all need to be given good metrics that
    [Show full text]
  • An Upper Bound on the Size of Diamond-Free Families of Sets
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of the Academy's Library An upper bound on the size of diamond-free families of sets Dániel Grósz∗ Abhishek Methuku† Casey Tompkins‡ Abstract Let La(n, P ) be the maximum size of a family of subsets of [n] = {1, 2,...,n} not containing P as a (weak) subposet. The diamond poset, denoted Q2, is defined on four elements x,y,z,w with the relations x < y,z and y,z < w. La(n, P ) has been studied for many posets; one of the major n open problems is determining La(n, Q2). It is conjectured that La(n, Q2) = (2+ o(1))⌊n/2⌋, and infinitely many significantly different, asymptotically tight constructions are known. Studying the average number of sets from a family of subsets of [n] on a maximal chain in the Boolean lattice 2[n] has been a fruitful method. We use a partitioning of the maximal chains and n introduce an induction method to show that La(n, Q2) ≤ (2.20711 + o(1))⌊n/2⌋, improving on the n earlier bound of (2.25 + o(1))⌊n/2⌋ by Kramer, Martin and Young. 1 Introduction Let [n]= 1, 2,...,n . The Boolean lattice 2[n] is defined as the family of all subsets of [n]= 1, 2,...,n , and the ith{ level of 2}[n] refers to the collection of all sets of size i. In 1928, Sperner proved the{ following} well-known theorem. Theorem 1.1 (Sperner [24]).
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Norms on Linear Spaces
    5 Norms on Linear Spaces 5.1 Introduction In this chapter we study norms on real or complex linear linear spaces. Definition 5.1. Let F = (F, {0, 1, +, −, ·}) be the real or the complex field. A semi-norm on an F -linear space V is a mapping ν : V −→ R that satisfies the following conditions: (i) ν(x + y) ≤ ν(x)+ ν(y) (the subadditivity property of semi-norms), and (ii) ν(ax)= |a|ν(x), for x, y ∈ V and a ∈ F . By taking a = 0 in the second condition of the definition we have ν(0)=0 for every semi-norm on a real or complex space. A semi-norm can be defined on every linear space. Indeed, if B is a basis of V , B = {vi | i ∈ I}, J is a finite subset of I, and x = i∈I xivi, define νJ (x) as P 0 if x = 0, νJ (x)= ( j∈J |aj | for x ∈ V . We leave to the readerP the verification of the fact that νJ is indeed a seminorm. Theorem 5.2. If V is a real or complex linear space and ν : V −→ R is a semi-norm on V , then ν(x − y) ≥ |ν(x) − ν(y)|, for x, y ∈ V . Proof. We have ν(x) ≤ ν(x − y)+ ν(y), so ν(x) − ν(y) ≤ ν(x − y). (5.1) 160 5 Norms on Linear Spaces Since ν(x − y)= |− 1|ν(y − x) ≥ ν(y) − ν(x) we have −(ν(x) − ν(y)) ≤ ν(x) − ν(y). (5.2) The Inequalities 5.1 and 5.2 give the desired inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Contrasting Stochastic and Support Theory Interpretations of Subadditivity
    Error and Subadditivity 1 A Stochastic Model of Subadditivity J. Neil Bearden University of Arizona Thomas S. Wallsten University of Maryland Craig R. Fox University of California-Los Angeles RUNNING HEAD: SUBADDITIVITY AND ERROR Please address all correspondence to: J. Neil Bearden University of Arizona Department of Management and Policy 405 McClelland Hall Tucson, AZ 85721 Phone: 520-603-2092 Fax: 520-325-4171 Email address: [email protected] Error and Subadditivity 2 Abstract This paper demonstrates both formally and empirically that stochastic variability is sufficient for, and at the very least contributes to, subadditivity of probability judgments. First, making rather weak assumptions, we prove that stochastic variability in mapping covert probability judgments to overt responses is sufficient to produce subadditive judgments. Three experiments follow in which participants provided repeated probability estimates. The results demonstrate empirically the contribution of random error to subadditivity. The theorems and the experiments focus on within-respondent variability, but most studies use between-respondent designs. We use numerical simulations to extend the work to contrast within- and between-respondent measures of subadditivity. Methodological implications of all the results are discussed, emphasizing the importance of taking stochastic variability into account when estimating the role of other factors (such as the availability bias) in producing subadditive judgments. Error and Subadditivity 3 A Stochastic Model of Subadditivity People are often called on the map their subjective degree of belief to a number on the [0,1] probability interval. Researchers established early on that probability judgments depart systematically from normative principles of Bayesian updating (e.g., Phillips & Edwards, 1966).
    [Show full text]
  • 5.2. Inner Product Spaces 1 5.2
    5.2. Inner Product Spaces 1 5.2. Inner Product Spaces Note. In this section, we introduce an inner product on a vector space. This will allow us to bring much of the geometry of Rn into the infinite dimensional setting. Definition 5.2.1. A vector space with complex scalars hV, Ci is an inner product space (also called a Euclidean Space or a Pre-Hilbert Space) if there is a function h·, ·i : V × V → C such that for all u, v, w ∈ V and a ∈ C we have: (a) hv, vi ∈ R and hv, vi ≥ 0 with hv, vi = 0 if and only if v = 0, (b) hu, v + wi = hu, vi + hu, wi, (c) hu, avi = ahu, vi, and (d) hu, vi = hv, ui where the overline represents the operation of complex conju- gation. The function h·, ·i is called an inner product. Note. Notice that properties (b), (c), and (d) of Definition 5.2.1 combine to imply that hu, av + bwi = ahu, vi + bhu, wi and hau + bv, wi = ahu, wi + bhu, wi for all relevant vectors and scalars. That is, h·, ·i is linear in the second positions and “conjugate-linear” in the first position. 5.2. Inner Product Spaces 2 Note. We can also define an inner product on a vector space with real scalars by requiring that h·, ·i : V × V → R and by replacing property (d) in Definition 5.2.1 with the requirement that the inner product is symmetric: hu, vi = hv, ui. Then Rn with the usual dot product is an example of a real inner product space.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning a Distance Metric from Relative Comparisons
    Learning a Distance Metric from Relative Comparisons Matthew Schultz and Thorsten Joachims Department of Computer Science Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 schultz,tj @cs.cornell.edu Abstract This paper presents a method for learning a distance metric from rel- ative comparison such as “A is closer to B than A is to C”. Taking a Support Vector Machine (SVM) approach, we develop an algorithm that provides a flexible way of describing qualitative training data as a set of constraints. We show that such constraints lead to a convex quadratic programming problem that can be solved by adapting standard meth- ods for SVM training. We empirically evaluate the performance and the modelling flexibility of the algorithm on a collection of text documents. 1 Introduction Distance metrics are an essential component in many applications ranging from supervised learning and clustering to product recommendations and document browsing. Since de- signing such metrics by hand is difficult, we explore the problem of learning a metric from examples. In particular, we consider relative and qualitative examples of the form “A is closer to B than A is to C”. We believe that feedback of this type is more easily available in many application setting than quantitative examples (e.g. “the distance between A and B is 7.35”) as considered in metric Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) (see [4]), or absolute qualitative feedback (e.g. “A and B are similar”, “A and C are not similar”) as considered in [11]. Building on the study in [7], search-engine query logs are one example where feedback of the form “A is closer to B than A is to C” is readily available for learning a (more semantic) similarity metric on documents.
    [Show full text]