4

I am not sure what it really means for the norm to be complete in a Hilbert Space. Can you provide me a proper definition? I am aware of the formula $||\Psi|| = <\Psi|\Psi>^{1/2}$.

What are its implications?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Raj
  • 43

2 Answers2

7

Consider a normed vector space $H$, equipped with some norm $\Vert \bullet\Vert$.

A sequence $\{\psi_i\}$ of elements $\psi_i\in H$ is called Cauchy if, given any $\epsilon>0$, there exists some natural number $N$ such that for all $n,m>N$, $\Vert \psi_n - \psi_m \Vert <\epsilon$. Loosely speaking, this means that the terms in the sequence eventually get (and remain) arbitrarily close together.

A sequence $\{\psi_i\}$ of elements $\psi_i\in H$ is said to converge to some element $\Psi\in H$ if, given any $\epsilon>0$, there exists some natural number $N$ such that for all $n>N$, $\Vert \psi_n - \Psi \Vert < \epsilon$. Loosely speaking, this means that the terms in the sequence eventually get (and remain) arbitrarily close to $\Psi$.


Question: These definitions look similar. Is a sequence being Cauchy the same as being convergent? It's not difficult to show that if a sequence converges, then it is Cauchy. However, the reverse is not generally true - one can have Cauchy sequences which do not converge to any element of the space.

As an example, consider the rational numbers $\mathbb Q$ equipped with the absolute value as a norm. It is not difficult to come up with a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers which nevertheless does not converge to a rational number; consider the sequence of partial sums for the alternating harmonic series: $$ \begin{aligned} a_1 &= 1\\ a_2 &= 1 - \frac{1}{2}\\ a_3 &= 1 - \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3}\\ \end{aligned} $$ so on and so forth. This sequence can be shown to be Cauchy (exercise for the reader), but does not converge to a rational number (it converges to $\ln(2)$).


If $H$ has the property that all Cauchy sequences of elements in $H$ are also convergent, then $H$ is called complete - more specifically, complete with respect to the metric induced by the norm. A Hilbert space is, by definition, a complete inner product space.

As for the implications of this, they are mostly technical$^\dagger$ (at least in the sense that they rarely show up explicitly in physics applications). I would say that a good general idea is that the completeness is intimately tied to convergence, which is important if you need to write some element of the Hilbert space as an infinite series of basis elements.


$^\dagger$ As per Valter Moretti's comment, I don't mean to downplay the importance of this completeness requirement to the framework of quantum mechanics. The spectral theorem for self-adjoint operators, which is fundamentally the basis for our association between self-adjoint operators and physically measurable quantities, requires completeness of the underlying space. Similarly, Stone's theorem which provides, among other things, a way to associate self-adjoint operators with continuous symmetries, requires completeness as well.

J. Murray
  • 69,036
  • 2
    "As for the implications of this, they are mostly technical (at least in the sense that they rarely show up explicitly in physics applications)." This is not the right way to say it. It seems that completeness is, say, physically marginal or mathematical, just because one assumes from scratch that some fact are true automatically. In particular, the fact that every selfadjoint operator admits a spectral decomposition or that every continuous group of symmetries admits a selfadjoint generator. Without completeness these basic requirements in applying the formalism are not guaranteed. – Valter Moretti Feb 19 '20 at 08:31
  • @ValterMoretti Thanks for those examples, I will add them to my answer. I was trying to say that the implications of completeness are important to the framework of quantum mechanics, but rarely (if ever) will there be a case in which one would say, "the Hilbert space is complete, which implies X" where X is something immediate and physical, e.g. "bound state energy levels are discrete." – J. Murray Feb 19 '20 at 12:58
  • Thanks for having clarifyied your answer! – Valter Moretti Feb 19 '20 at 13:09
  • I wonder if there is an example of a nonconvergent Cauchy sequence that does not rely on the sequence converging toward "holes" of the set – lurscher Feb 19 '20 at 13:20
  • 1
    @lurscher I think not, if only because if you fill those holes by moving to $\mathbb R$, then all Cauchy sequences do converge. – J. Murray Feb 19 '20 at 13:23
  • Thanks, @J.Murray, this helped clarify my doubts. I was somehow unable to see how a Cauchy sequence was being defined. – Raj Feb 19 '20 at 19:35
0

Completeness with respect to the norm means that every Cauchy sequence converges to a point in the space.

A typical example of an incomplete inner product space is the polynomials on the interval $(0,1)$ with the inner product $(f,g)=\int_0^1 dx \; f(x) g(x) $.

Any linear combination of polynomials is a polynomial. But an infinite (Cauchy) sequence of polynomials (i.e. a Taylor series) can converge to a non-polynomial function. Thus polynomials form a vector space with inner product, but not a Hilbert space.

On the other hand, a Cauchy sequence of square-integrable functions on (0,1) remains square-integrable. So the square-integrable functions do form a Hilbert space in this inner product.

  • Although not the place and time to explain : in case of functions on $(0,1)$ the Hilbert space has as elements equivalent classes of functions. Two functions are equivalent if they are almost everywhere equal and the term "almost everywhere" means that a condition is not valid on a set of Lebesque measure zero. – Frobenius Feb 19 '20 at 08:05
  • Yes, that's right. But not all that relevant to understanding what "complete" means. OP will find it if they go try to prove L2 complete. But anyway I guess it's worth mentioning at least, so thanks for adding it. – Joe Schindler Feb 19 '20 at 08:09
  • Yes, I agree with you. – Frobenius Feb 19 '20 at 08:12