Two notions of equivalent norms?

by Gory   Last Updated June 22, 2018 17:20 PM

I have two statements in mind that taken without further caution could seem contradictory:

  • all norms are equivalent in finite dimension
  • there are infinitely many non-equivalent norm over the rationals (Ostrowski)

So I should be missing a point. Is it that the first statement is only valid for the reals or complexes? (however I have the impression that the proof still holds over the rationals)

Or is it rather than the two notions of equivalence (one with bounds, continuity of the identity; the other with equality up to a certain power) are different? Case in which: why are these two natural, what motivates one in some cases and the other one in others?



Related Questions



Prove that the following assertions are equivalent?

Updated March 15, 2017 20:20 PM

Continuity of a "multiplier" in a vector equation

Updated August 05, 2016 08:08 AM

Examples for topological vector space

Updated September 21, 2017 19:20 PM