Talk:Compact operator on Hilbert space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	A-BB+ Class	Mid Priority	Field: Analysis
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. GA soon.--Cronholm144 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is a misunderstanding. It is pointless to include mathematical proofs of properties of compact operators in an article addressed for a general reader. A reference to a book would be enough.

:i am going to dispense with politeness here. who says this is "addressed for a general reader"? how "general" is general? if general is meant as in the general public, then no, this is not addressed to the general reader. a general reader who can't read this is supposed to be able to read a book? i believe the level of the article is comparable to introductory books on the subject. since you didn't make it clear, far as i see, there are two possibilities here,

:#if you can read, say, bounded operator, or uniform boundedness principle, or any other similar article, and find this article completely incomprehensible, then i would agree that certainly changes are needed. if that's the case, ignore 2. below and let's hear your suggestions. :#otherwise, how about directing your attention to stuff that you are actually competent enough to read and not waste your, and possibly other people's, time with comments like that? Cracking (chemistry) seems like Greek to me. if i left a comment similar to yours on its talk page, it certainly would be unhelpful and very stupid of me.

Mct mht 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

to anon: this is a very late follow up but if you still around, sorry for the tone in my reply above. it was way too harsh. i apologize. Mct mht 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

let me apologize again. there's really no excuse for my reaction there. Mct mht 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A mistake?

"A matrix M is diagonalizable if and only if it is normal" Liransh 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

yes. should be unitarily diagonalizable. Mct mht 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to "Question to writer"?

According to Theorem 6.6.1 in Functional Analysis: Applications in Mechanics and Inverse Problems by Lebedev, Vorovich, and Gladwell, separability is not required for the if and only if statement to be true. The Google books link to this book is: [[1]]

I hope this helps resolve the question. (The article's mainpage still contains the question; it should be changed as soon as someone more familiar with Hilbert spaces checks this fact.)

Owlcatowl (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)