0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

2 vizualizări8 paginiMay 08, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

2 vizualizări8 pagini© All Rights Reserved

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

Sangchul Lee

Contents

2 Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Then A(X ) is a directed set with the usual set-inclusion.

Proof. Only the possible non-trivial statement is that every two elements α, β ∈ A(X ) have an upper

bound. But this is also easy since α + β ∈ A(X ) is finite-dimensional and contains both α and β.

Lemma 1.2. Let M be a closed proper subspace of the Banach space X and x 0 ∈ X \ M. Then

there exists ϕ ∈ X ∗ such that

(a) ϕ(y) = 0 for y ∈ M,

(b) ϕ(x 0 ) = dist(x 0, M) , and

(c) kϕk = 1.

dist(x, M) = inf k x − yk

y ∈M

1

is a sublinear functional on X and that dist(λ x, M) = |λ| dist(x, M) for all λ ∈ C. Now let

d = dist(x 0, M) and consider the linear functional ϕ0 : Cx 0 → C given by

ϕ0 (λ x 0 ) = λd.

Since |ϕ0 (λ x 0 )| = |λ|d = dist(λ x 0, M), we can follow the proof of Theorem 1.26 mutandis mutatis to

construct a linear functional ϕ that extends ϕ0 . Indeed, consider Re ϕ0 as a R-linear functional, extend

this to a R-linear functional ψ on X̃ (X considered as a R-normed space) dominated by the sublinear

functional dist(·, M), and define ϕ(x) = ψ(x) − iψ(ix). Then we notice that

• ϕ(x 0 ) = ϕ0 (x 0 ) = d.

• To show that kϕk ≤ 1, write ϕ(x) = reiθ and notice that

|ϕ(x)| = e−iθ ϕ(x) = ϕ(e−iθ x) = ψ(e−iθ x) ≤ dist(e−iθ x, M) = dist(x, M) ≤ k xk.

• Finally, notice that for any y ∈ M, we have

|ϕ(x 0 − y)| d

kϕk ≥ = .

k x 0 − yk k x 0 − yk

Taking supremum over y ∈ M, it follows that kϕk ≥ 1.

This completes the proof.

Proof. Let {ϕ1, ϕ2, · · · } be a dense subset of X ∗ . For each n, choose x n ∈ X such that

|ϕ n (x n )|

≥ 21 kϕ n k

k xn k

Then we claim that the set D of all possible Q-linear combinations of {x 1, x 2, · · · } is dense in X . Since

D is countable, this will prove that X is separable as well.

To this end, we assume otherwise. Then the the closure M of D in X is not equal to X . Notice

also that M is in fact a closed subspace of X . Using this, choose any x 0 ∈ X \ M and pick ϕ ∈ X ∗ as

in Lemma 1.2. Clearly ϕ is not identically zero. Also we have

|ϕ(x n ) − ϕ n (x n )| |ϕ n (x n )|

kϕ − ϕ n k ≥ = ≥ 21 kϕ n k.

k xn k k xn k

Since {ϕ1, ϕ2, · · · } is dense in X ∗ , we can choose a subsequence (ϕ n j ) such that kϕ − ϕ n j k → 0. Then

the above inequality shows that ϕ = lim j→∞ ϕ n j = 0, a contradiction. This completes the proof.

2

2 Solutions

Exercise 1.13. Prove that the relative w ∗ -topology on the unit ball X ∗ is metrizable if and only if X

is separable.

metrization theorem shows that (X ∗ )1 is metrizable if and only if it is second-countable.

• Assume that (X ∗ )1 is second-countable. Then X ∗ = ∪n (X ∗ )n is also second-countable and

hence separable. This implies that X is separable, by Proposition 1.3.

• Assume that X is separable. Choose a dense subset D = { f 1, f 2, · · · } of X and a countable base

(Uk ) of the usual topology on C. Then we consider the set

Vn,k = {ϕ ∈ (X ∗ )1 : ϕ( f n ) ∈ Uk }.

Clearly {Vn, k }n, k ≥1 is a countable family of open sets. Now assume that (ψα )α ∈ A is a net in

(X ∗ )1 such that

lim ψα ( f n ) = ψ( f n ) for each n.

α∈A

(We remark that this information is completely determined by the collection {Vn, k }n, k ≥1 .) Then

by Proposition 1.21, this implies that (ψα ) w ∗ -converges to ψ. Thus {Vn,k }n, k ≥1 determines the

topology of (X ∗ )1 and hence (X ∗ )1 is second countable.

This completes the equivalence of two conditions.

d = inf{k x − yk : y ∈ N }.

If d > 0, then show that there exists ϕ in X ∗ such that ϕ(y) = 0 for y in N , ϕ(x) = 1, and

kϕk = 1/d .

Proof. Let M be the closure of N , which is a proper closed subspace of X . It is clear that we have

dist(x, M) = dist(x, N ) for any x ∈ X . Then choose ϕ as in Lemma 1.2 and divide it by d to obtain

the desired linear functional.

Exercise 1.15. Show that if we define the function fˆ(ϕ) = ϕ( f ) for f ∈ X and ϕ ∈ X ∗ , then fˆ is

in X ∗∗ and the mapping f → fˆ is an isometric isomorphism of X onto X ∗∗ .

3

Proof. We know from linear algebra that the mapping f 7→ fˆ is linear. So it suffices to prove that this

mapping preserves norm. (In particular, this automatically guarantees that this mapping is injective.)

To this end, let f ∈ X . Then for any ϕ ∈ X ∗ with kϕk = 1,

| fˆ(ϕ)| = |ϕ( f )| ≤ kϕk k f k = k f k.

Taking supremum over kϕk = 1, we find that k fˆk ≤ k f k. Also, by Corollary 1.27, there exists ϕ with

kϕk = 1 such that ϕ( f ) = k f k. Thus we have

k fˆk ≥ | fˆ(ϕ)| = |ϕ( f )| = k f k.

Exercise 1.16. Show that X is reflexive for X finite dimensional but that none of the spaces c0 (Z+ ) ,

l 1 (Z+ ) , l ∞ (Z+ ) , C([0, 1]) , and L 1 ([0, 1]) is reflexive.

Proof. (a) If X is finite-dimensional, then we know from linear algebra that dim X ∗∗ = dim X . Also,

from the previous exercise we know that X is naturally embedded into X ∗∗ . Therefore X and X ∗∗

is isometrically isomorphic and hence reflexive.

(b) Inseparability of c0 (Z+ ). We know that c0 (Z+ ) ∗∗ ' ` ∞ (Z+ ), which is much larger than c0 (Z+ ).

Thus c0 (Z+ ) is not reflexive.

(c) Inseparability of ` 1 (Z+ ). We know that ` 1 (Z+ ) is separable. If it is reflexive, then ` 1 (Z+ ) ∗∗ '

` 1 (Z+ ) must be also separable. But by Proposition 1.3, this implies that ` 1 (Z+ ) ∗ ' ` ∞ (Z+ ) is

separable, which is a contradiction. Therefore ` 1 (Z+ ) is not reflexive.

(d) Inseparability of C([0, 1]). Notice that for each x ∈ [0, 1], the Dirac-delta δ x : f 7→ f (x) is a

bounded linear functional on C([0, 1]):

|δ x ( f )| = | f (x)| ≤ k f k.

Moreover, for x , y we can find a separating function f ∈ C([0, 1]) such that k f k = 1, f (x) = 1

and f (y) = 0. This implies that

|δ x ( f ) − δ y ( f )|

kδ x − δ y k ≥ = 1.

kfk

Thus C([0, 1]) ∗ is inseparable and the same is true for C([0, 1]) ∗∗ . On the other hand, C([0, 1])

is separable by a simple application of Stone-Weierstrass theorem. Therefore C([0, 1]) is not

reflexive.

(e) Inseparability of L 1 ([0, 1]). We know that L 1 ([0, 1]) is separable. On the other hand, it is easy

to modify the argument for inseparability of ` ∞ (Z+ ) to show that L ∞ ([0, 1]) ' L 1 ([0, 1]) ∗ is

inseparable. Thus L 1 ([0, 1]) cannot be reflexive.

4

∞ is a sequence in X ∗ such that {ϕ ( f )} ∞

Exercise 1.21. If X is a Banach space and {ϕ n }n=1 n n=1

is a Cauchy sequence for each f in X , then limn→∞ ϕ n exists in the w ∗ -topology. Moreover, the

corresponding result for nets is false.

Proof. Assume that (ϕ n ) ⊂ X ∗ is pointwise Cauchy. Then (ϕ n ) converges pointwise. Let us denote

the limit by

ϕ( f ) := lim ϕ n ( f ), f ∈ X.

n→∞

pointwise bounded. Then by the uniform boundedness principle, (ϕ n ) is uniformly bounded and hence

ϕ is bounded as well. This proves the w ∗ -convergence.

If the ‘Cauchy sequence’ is replaced by ‘Cauchy net’, this argument breaks down since Cauchy net

need not be necessarily bounded. Indeed, for any infinite-dimensional Banach space there exists an

unbounded linear functional, then the next problem gives a counter-example.

Exercise 1.22. Show that if X is a Banach space and ϕ is a (not necessarily continuous) linear

functional on X , then there exists a net {ϕα }α ∈ A in X ∗ such that limα ∈ A ϕα ( f ) = ϕ( f ) for f ∈ X .

Proof. Let ϕ be any linear functional on X . As in Lemma 1.1, Define A = A(X ) by the family of

non-trivial, finite-dimensional subspaces of X .

Now for each α ∈ A, notice that ϕ|α is bounded on α. Thus by the Hahn-Banach theorem we can

choose a bounded linear functional Φα that extend the restriction ϕ|α to all of X .

For each f ∈ X , we can pick α0 = C f ∈ A such that for any α0 ⊆ α we have Φα ( f ) = ϕ( f ).

This tells us that Φα ( f ) → ϕ( f ) for each f ∈ X . Therefore the net {Φα }α ∈ A satisfies the desired

condition.

Exercise 1.24. Show that a subspace M of the Banach space X is norm closed if and only if it is

w -closed. Show that the unit sphere in X is w -closed if and only if X is finite dimensional.*

Proof. (1) Assume first that M is w-closed. Then clearly M is norm-closed. Indeed, whenever the net

{ f α } ⊂ M converges to some f in X , we have f α * f as well. This forces that f ∈ M, thus M is

norm-closed as claimed.

(2) Now assume that M is norm-closed. If M = X , there is nothing to prove. So we assume that

M , X . Then for each f ∈ X \ M we pick ϕ f ∈ X ∗ according to Lemma 1.2. Then it is easy to check

5

that

\

M= ker ϕ f .

f ∈X \M

This follows by noticing that for each f ∈ X \ M, we have both M ⊆ ker ϕ f and f < ker ϕ f . But since

each kernel is the inverse image of the closed set {0}, it is w-closed. Therefore the intersection of all

{ker ϕ f } f ∈X \M is again w-closed.

(3) Assume that d = dim X < ∞. Then so is X ∗ and we have dim X ∗ = d. Let {ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d } be a

dual basis of X ∗ . Since X is finite-dimensional, ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d are (norm-)continuous. Now consider

k f k 0 := |ϕ1 ( f )| + · · · + |ϕ d ( f )|.

We make several observations:

• This defines another norm on X . Indeed, the only non-trivial part is the non-degeneracy of k · k 0.

But k f k 0 = 0 implies that any linear combination of ϕ1 ( f ), · · · , ϕ d ( f ) is 0, hence f = 0 as well.

• Any two norm on a finite-dimensional normed space are equivalent. In particular, k · k and k · k 0

are equivalent.

• The w-topology on X is induced by the norm. Indeed, if a net { f α } w-converges to f ∈ X then

k f α − f k 0 = |ϕ1 ( f α ) − ϕ1 ( f )| + · · · + |ϕ d ( f α ) − ϕ d ( f )|

also converges to 0, hence f α → f in norm.

Therefore the unit sphere in X is w-closed.

(4) Assume that dim X = ∞. As in Lemma 1.1, let A = A(X ∗ ) be the family of non-trivial,

finite-dimensional subspaces of X ∗ .

For each α ∈ A, notice that ϕ ∈α ker ϕ , {0}. Otherwise, if we choose a basis {ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d } of α

T

then the linear map f 7→ (ϕ1 ( f ), · · · , ϕ d ( f )) must be injective X → Cd , which is impossible since

dim X = ∞.

Using the previous observation, for each α ∈ A we pick f α ∈ X such that k f α k = 1 and ϕ( f α ) = 0

for all ϕ ∈ α. Then we claim that { f α }α ∈ A converges weakly to 0. Indeed, for any ϕ ∈ X ∗ there exists

α0 ∈ A such that ϕ ∈ α (Pick arbitrary α0 if ϕ = 0 or let α0 = Cϕ). Then for any α0 ⊆ α, we have

ϕ( f α ) = 0.

This proves that limα ∈ A ϕ( f α ) = 0 for each ϕ ∈ X ∗ and hence the claim. Therefore the unit sphere in

X is not w-closed.

6

(Step 1: choice of directed set) Define A by

A = {(S, δ) : ∅ , S ⊂ X ∗ is linearly independent and finite, δ > 0}

and equip A with the partial ordering ≤ given by

(S, δ) ≤ (S 0, δ 0 ) if and only if S ⊆ S0 and δ ≥ δ 0.

It is straightforward to see that A is a directed set. (An easy way to see this is to recognize A as a

product of two directed sets.)

as follows: Let α = ({ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d }, δ) be arbitrary. Then Φ : X → Cd defined by

Φ( f ) = (ϕ1 ( f ), · · · , ϕ d ( f ))

is a surjective linear map onto Cd . Using this fact, choose any gα ∈ Φ−1 ( f ∗∗ (ϕ1 ), · · · , f ∗∗ (ϕ d )) and

finally pick f α such that

f α ∈ ((1 − δ)gα + ker Φ) ∩ (X )1 .

Assume that this construction is possible (which we will prove). Then for any 0 , ϕ ∈ X ∗ and ε > 0,

we can choose α0 = ({ϕ}, ε/(1 + | f ∗∗ (ϕ)|)) ∈ A such that for any α0 ≤ α = (S, δ) ∈ A,

|ϕ( f α ) − f ∗∗ (ϕ)| = |(1 − δ) f ∗∗ (ϕ) − f ∗∗ (ϕ)|

= δ| f ∗∗ (ϕ)|

< ε.

This shows that our net { f α }α ∈ A w ∗ -converges to f ∗∗ as desired.

(Step 3: justification) Here are some technical details that justifies this construction:

• If Φ is not surjective, then using the inner product structure of Cd we can pick 0 , (α1, · · · , α d ) ∈

Φ(X ) ⊥ . This implies ᾱ1 ϕ1 + · · · ᾱ d ϕ d ≡ 0 on X , contradicting to the linear independence.

• We need to show that ((1 − δ)gα + ker Φ) ∩ (X )1 is non-empty for any δ > 0. Assume that this is

impossible. This implies that dist(0, 1 − δ)gα + ker Φ) ≥ 1 and hence

1

dist(gα, ker Φ) ≥ 1−δ > 1.

On the other hand, using Lemma 1.2, we can choose ψ ∈ X ∗ such that

ψ≡0 on ker Φ, ψ(gα ) = dist(gα, ker Φ), kψk = 1.

The first condition shows that ϕ ∈ span{ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d }. Thus

dist(gα, ker Φ) = |ψ(gα )| = | f ∗∗ (ψ)| ≤ kψk k f ∗∗ k ≤ 1,

7

a contradiction! Therefore we can always choose such f α .

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.