Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If $V$ and $W$ are topological vector spaces (and $W$ is finite-dimensional) then a linear operator $L\colon V\to W$ is continuous if and only if the kernel of $L$ is a closed subspace of $V$.

Why is this so?

share|improve this question
2  
Since $\ker L = L^{-1}(0)$, one direction is trivial: the singleton $\{0\}$ is closed in $W$, so the continuity of $L$ implies that $\ker L$ is closed in $V$. –  Siminore Apr 23 '12 at 13:29
    
I see thanks. I have another question If you could perhaps help? Say $M$ is a closed subspace of a Hilbert Space $H$, then we can write $H = M + M^{\perp}$ . Does this hold if M is not closed? –  rk101 Apr 23 '12 at 13:33
    
As far as I know, the orthogonal decomposition is true only for closed subspaces. I mean, true in general. –  Siminore Apr 23 '12 at 13:34
    
@rk101 For your second question, maybe you should open an other one. And the answer is no if the Hilbert space is infinite dimensional, since you can find a non-continuous linear functional. Its kernel is a dense strict subspace, so its orthogonal is $\{0\}$. –  Davide Giraudo Apr 23 '12 at 13:44
    
I don't think your solution is corrected. Why do you make sure that" {wn} can't have any convergent subsequence, and kerL is not closed". In this case, KerL is not compact, so it doesn't require that every sequence in a closed subset must be have convergent subsequence. –  Hoang Nguyen Mar 27 '13 at 1:27

2 Answers 2

up vote 0 down vote accepted

Assume $W=\mathbb{R}$ for simplicity. If $L$ is not continuous at zero, there is a sequence $\{v_n\}$ in $V$ such that $|v_n|=1$ and $|Lv_n| \to +\infty$. Assume that $L \neq 0$, the null map. Then you can fix $z \in V$ such that $Lz=1$. Consider now $w_n=v_n-(Lv_n)z \in V$. Trivially, $Lw_n=0$, so that $w_n \in \ker L$. But $$|w_n| \geq \left| |L v_n| |z| - |v_n| \right| \to +\infty.$$ Hence $\{w_n\}$ can't have any convergent subsequence, and $\ker L$ is not closed. This is the proof if $V$ has a norm. In the general case, the reasoning is rather similar, but one needs to know the concept of balanced neighborhood. A precise reference is Theorem 1.18 of Rudin, Functional Analysis.

share|improve this answer
2  
What does $|v_n|$ mean if $v_n\in V$, a topological vector space which may be not a normed space? –  Davide Giraudo Apr 23 '12 at 13:45
    
You are right, and I'm not very familiar to topological vector spaces without a (semi)norm. The proof follows similar lines, but the unit ball is replaced by a fixed neighborhood of zero. –  Siminore Apr 23 '12 at 14:01
    
You don't need to assume that $L \neq 0$. If $L = 0$, then it is automatically continuous, and the kernel, the whole space, is closed. –  asmeurer Feb 12 '13 at 3:19
1  
Wouldn't your argument about a convergent subsequence just imply that ker L is not compact, not open? –  asmeurer Feb 12 '13 at 3:41
1  
How is showing an unbounded sequence exists in a set proving this set being closed? There are closed sets that contain unbounded sequences. Please explain. –  Voldemort Dec 11 '13 at 18:32

You need the hypothesis that $V$ and $W$ be Hausdorff, although this is usually given for granted.

One direction is as in Siminore's comment.

For the other, since $\text{ker}L$ is closed, the quotient space $V/\text{ker}L$ is Hausdorff. Algebraically $V/\text{ker}L\cong\text{im}L,$ and $\text{im}L$ is a subspace of $W.$ The algebraic isomorphism $V/\text{ker}L\cong\text{im}L$ derived from $L$ is a topological isomorphism because finite-dimensional spaces admit only one Hausdorff topological vector space topology (any linear isomorphism between finite-dimensional Hausdorff topological vector spaces is a topological isomorphism). This means that $L$ is continuous, as a composition of the quotient map $V\to V/\text{ker}L$ with the isomorphism between $V/\text{ker}L$ and $\text{im}L$ with the inclusion $\text{im}L\to W.$

share|improve this answer
    
You only need $W$ to be Hausdorff for this argument to work. –  t.b. Apr 23 '12 at 14:12

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.