Alphabeta Math
DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-29
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

The p-norms ∥x∥p for rational p≥1, and ∥x∥∞

Definition

Let n∈N and let Rn be the function space of The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn, with xk:=x(k) for k<n.

The p-norm, for a rational exponent p≥1

Let p∈Q with p≥1. For x∈Rn put

∥x∥p  :=  (∑k<n∣xk∣p)1/p,

where ∣⋅∣ is the absolute value (Absolute value in an ordered field), the sum is the finite sum of Finite sums and finite products, by recursion, and both powers are the rational powers of Rational powers ar of a positive base.

Every power written here is defined. Each base ∣xk∣ is a nonnegative real and p>0, so ∣xk∣p is given by Rational powers ar of a positive base for ∣xk∣>0 and by its supplementary clause 0p=0 for ∣xk∣=0; the sum of these nonnegative terms is nonnegative (Laws of finite sums and finite products clause 4), and 1/p is a positive rational, so the outer power is defined for the same two reasons. The value does not depend on which representative of p or of 1/p is used (Rational powers do not depend on the representative).

The exponent is a rational, and that is not a matter of taste. Rational powers ar of a positive base supplies ar for a nonnegative base and a rational exponent only; real exponents do not exist at this point in the reading order, and Why real exponents are deferred on the rational-powers page records exactly why. This is also why the published Minkowski inequality Minkowski's inequality for finite sums (rational exponent), which is what makes the triangle inequality work below, is itself stated for rational p≥1. No statement on this page is written for p ranging over a real interval.

The maximum norm

For n≥1 and x∈Rn put

∥x∥∞  :=  max⁡{ ∣xk∣  :  k<n },

the maximum of a nonempty finite set of reals, which exists and is one of its elements (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set).

The hypothesis n≥1 is required and propagates. At n=0 the set {∣xk∣:k<n} is empty and has no maximum (Maximum and minimum of a set). This is the same restriction the published Rn as the set of functions n→R, and d1, d2, d∞ are metrics on it carries, for the same reason, and every statement on this page that mentions ∥⋅∥∞ inherits it. The p-norms for rational p≥1 carry no such restriction: at n=0 each is the empty sum raised to a positive rational power, hence 0.

The three cases the rest of the page uses

That each of these is a norm in the sense of A norm on a real vector space, the induced metric, and the dictionary with the metric axioms, and that the metrics they induce are exactly the published d1, d2 and d∞ of Rn as the set of functions n→R, and d1, d2, d∞ are metrics on it, is Each ∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn, and the induced metrics are exactly d1, d2 and d∞ of the published metric-spaces page; it is proved there and is not assumed here.

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

…and 29 more results.

Dependency tree · two levels

64 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources