30 Peter G. Casazza(1 − ɛ) N M ≤ ‖ϕ i‖ 2 ≤ (1 + ɛ) N M .Let T be the analysis operator of {ϕ i } M i=1 <strong>and</strong> let P be the projection of H Monto range T . So, T ϕ i = P e i for all i = 1, 2, . . . , M. By our assumption thatthe Projection Problem holds, there is a projection Q on H M with constantdiagonal so thatM∑‖P e i − Qe i ‖ 2 ≤ f(ɛ, N, M).i=1By <strong>The</strong>orem 16, there is a a Parseval frame {ψ i } M i=1 for HN with analysisoperator T 1 so that T 1 ψ i = Qe i <strong>and</strong>M∑‖ϕ i − ψ i ‖ 2 ≤ 2f(ɛ, N, M).i=1S<strong>in</strong>ce T 1 is a isometry <strong>and</strong> {T 1 ψ i } M i=1 is equal norm, it follows that {ψ i} M i=1is an equal norm Parseval frame satisfy<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>Paulsen</strong> problem.Conversely, assume the Parseval <strong>Paulsen</strong> problem has a positive solutionwith function g(ɛ, N, M). Let P be an orthogonal projection on H M satisfy<strong>in</strong>g(1 − ɛ) N M ≤ ‖P e i‖ 2 ≤ (1 + ɛ) N M .<strong>The</strong>n {P e i } M i=1 is a ɛ-nearly equal norm Parseval frame for HN <strong>and</strong> by the<strong>Paulsen</strong> problem, there is an equal norm Parseval frame {ψ i } M i=1 so thatM∑‖ϕ i − ψ i ‖ 2 < g(ɛ, N, M).i=1Let T 1 be the analysis operator of {ψ i } M i=1 . Lett<strong>in</strong>g Q be the projection ontothe range of T 1 , we have that Qe i = T 1 ψ i , for all i = 1, 2, . . . , M. By <strong>The</strong>orem15, we have thatM∑N∑‖P e i − T 1 ψ i ‖ 2 = ‖P e i − Qe i ‖ 2 ≤ 4g(ɛ, N, M).i=1i=1S<strong>in</strong>ce T 1 is a isometry <strong>and</strong> {ψ i } M i=1constant diagonal projection.is equal norm, it follows that Q is aIn [14] there are several generalizations of the <strong>Paulsen</strong> <strong>and</strong> Projection<strong>Problems</strong>.
1 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Kadison</strong>-<strong>S<strong>in</strong>ger</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Paulsen</strong> <strong>Problems</strong> <strong>in</strong> F<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>Frame</strong> <strong>The</strong>ory 311.5 F<strong>in</strong>al CommentsWe have concentrated here on some problems <strong>in</strong> pure mathematics which havef<strong>in</strong>ite dimensional formulations. <strong>The</strong>re are many other <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite dimensionalversions of these problems [26, 27] <strong>in</strong> sampl<strong>in</strong>g theory, harmonic analysis <strong>and</strong>more which we have not covered.Because of the long history of these problems <strong>and</strong> their connections to somany areas of mathematics, we are naturally led to consider the decidabilityof KS. S<strong>in</strong>ce we have f<strong>in</strong>ite dimensional versions of the problem, it can bereformulated <strong>in</strong> the language of pure number theory, <strong>and</strong> hence it has aproperty logicians call absolutness. As a practical matter, the general feel<strong>in</strong>gis that this means it is very unlikely to be undecidable.Acknowledgements<strong>The</strong> author acknowledges support from NSF DMS 1008183, NSF ATD1042701<strong>and</strong> AFOSR DGE51: FA9550-11-1-0245.References1. C.A. Akemann <strong>and</strong> J. Anderson, Lyapunov theorems for operator algebras, Memoirsof AMS 94 (1991).2. J. Anderson, Restrictions <strong>and</strong> representations of states on C ∗ -algebras, Transactionsof AMS 249 (1979) 303–329.3. J. Anderson, Extreme po<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> sets of positive l<strong>in</strong>ear maps on B(H), Journalof Functional Analysis 31 (1979) 195–217.4. J. Anderson, A conjecture concern<strong>in</strong>g pure states on B(H) <strong>and</strong> a related theorem,<strong>in</strong> Topics <strong>in</strong> modern operator theory, Birkhäuser (1981) 27–43.5. R. Balan, Equivalence relations <strong>and</strong> distances between Hilbert frames. Proceed<strong>in</strong>gsof AMS 127 (8) (1999), 2353-2366.6. R. Balan, P.G. Casazza, C. Heil <strong>and</strong> Z. L<strong>and</strong>au, Density, overcompleteness <strong>and</strong>localization of frames. I. <strong>The</strong>ory, Journal of Fourier Analysis <strong>and</strong> Applications,12 (2006) pp. 105-143.7. R. Balan, P.G. Casazza, C. Heil <strong>and</strong> Z. L<strong>and</strong>au, Density, overcompleteness <strong>and</strong>localization of frames. II. Gabor systems, Journal of Fourier Analysis <strong>and</strong> Applications,12 (2006) pp. 309-344.8. K. Berman, H. Halpern, V. Kaftal <strong>and</strong> G. Weiss, Matrix norm <strong>in</strong>equalities <strong>and</strong>the relative Dixmier property, Integral Equations <strong>and</strong> Operator <strong>The</strong>ory 11 (1988)28–48.9. K. Berman, H. Halpern, V. Kaftal <strong>and</strong> G. Weiss, Some C 4 <strong>and</strong> C 6 norm <strong>in</strong>equalitiesrelated to the pav<strong>in</strong>g problem, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of Symposia <strong>in</strong> Pure Math.51 (1970) 29-41.10. B. Bodmann <strong>and</strong> P.G. Casazza, <strong>The</strong> road to equal-norm Parseval frames, Journalof Functional Analysis 258, No. 2 (2010) 397-420.