Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

How to show that a Banach space $X$ is reflexive if its dual $X'$ is reflexive?

share|cite|improve this question
First show that if $X'$ is reflexive then $X''$ is reflexive. Then what can you say about $\hat X$? – matt Jun 1 '12 at 6:26
@matt: what's $\hat{X}$? – t.b. Jun 1 '12 at 6:27
@t.b. $\hat X$ is canonical embedding of $X$ in $X''$. Sorry I should mentioned this. – matt Jun 1 '12 at 6:30

Really a Banach space $X$ is reflexive if and only if $X'$ is reflexive.

$$X\textrm{ is reflexive}\Longrightarrow X'\textrm{ is reflexive.}\tag{1}$$

Proof. By Banach-Alaoglu-Bourbaki theorem the closed ball $B_{X'}$ is closed w.r.t. the weak-* topology $\sigma(X',X)$. By the reflexivity of $X$ we have $\sigma(X',X'')=\sigma(X',X).$ So $B_{X'}$ is closed w.r.t. the weak topology $\sigma(X',X),$ that is $X'$ is reflexive.$\square$

$$X'\textrm{ is reflexive}\Longrightarrow X\textrm{ is reflexive.}\tag{2}$$

Proof. By hypothesis and by (1) we get that $X''$ is reflexive, and therefore even its closed vector subspace $J(X)$ is reflexive. But the canonical injection $J:X\to X''$ is an isometry so $X$ is reflexive.$\square$

share|cite|improve this answer
Appealing to Alaoglu is a bit of an overkill: if $X$ is reflexive then the canonical map $\iota_{X}\colon X \to X^{\ast\ast}$ is an isomorphism. Hence $\iota_{X^\ast} = ((\iota_{X})^{\ast})^{-1} = ((\iota_{X})^{-1})^\ast$ is an isomorphism. – t.b. Jun 1 '12 at 7:00
Dear Theo, I haven't thought this argument, it is simpler than the one I have wrote. Thank you. – Giuseppe Jun 1 '12 at 7:08
@t.b. could you expand that thought? I don't understand your argument. – Parakee Nov 9 '12 at 3:21
@Parakee: 1. Let $\iota_X\colon X \to X^{\ast\ast}$ and $\iota_{X^\ast}\colon X^\ast \to X^{\ast\ast\ast}$ be the canonical inclusions. Then we have that $(\iota_X)^\ast \circ (\iota_{X^\ast}) = \operatorname{id}_{X^\ast}$ by a direct verification. 2. If an operator is invertible then so is its adjoint $(\iota_X)^\ast$. 3. If an operator $S$ is right inverse to an invertible operator $T$ then $S$ is itself invertible and equal to the inverse: $S = T^{-1}$. 4. Apply this to $T = (\iota_X)^\ast$ and $S = \iota_{X^\ast}$. – t.b. Nov 29 '12 at 14:41

I'm assuming that you have two Theorems at your disposal, easily proven:

Theorem 1: If a Banach space $X$ is reflexive then its dual space $X'$ is reflexive.

Theorem 2: A closed subspace of a reflexive Banach space is reflexive.

Claim: Let $X$ be a Banach space. If $X'$ is reflexive then $X$ is reflexive.

Proof: Suppose $X'$ is reflexive. By Theorem 1 it follows that $X''$ is reflexive. If we consider the Canonical mapping $J : X \to X''$ it follows that $J(X)$ is a subspace of $X''$. Since $X \cong J(X)$ and $X$ is a Banach space, then $J(X)$ is a Banach space and hence closed. By Theorem 2 we can conclude that $J(X)$ is reflexive. But since $X \cong J(X)$ conclude that $X$ is reflexive.

Moreover a consequence of this is that a Banach space is reflexive if and only if its dual space is reflexive.

share|cite|improve this answer
Very nice proof! – Xiang Yu Oct 30 '15 at 9:08
Why is $J(X) =X$? – D1X Jun 26 at 18:31

It can be shown directly:

Let $J : X \to X^{**}$ and $J_*: X^* \to X^{***}$ be the canonical surjections. Suppose by contradiction that $JX \subsetneq X^{**}$; using Hahn-Banach theorem, there exists $\zeta \in X^{***}$ such that $\zeta \neq 0$ and $\zeta \equiv 0$ on $JX$.

Because $X^*$ is reflexive, there exists $\theta \in X^*$ such that $\zeta = J_*\theta$. For all $x \in X$:

$$0= \langle \zeta,Jx \rangle= \langle J_*\theta,Jx \rangle = \langle Jx,\theta \rangle= \langle \theta,x \rangle$$

You deduce that $\theta=0$ and therefore $\zeta=0$: a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
Seirios, $\zeta \in X^{***}$ and $Jx \in X^{**}$, so how exactly can an inner product $\langle \zeta ,Jx \rangle $ be defined? Secondly, there is no assumption of inner products defined on $X, X^{**}$ , etc. $X$ is merely a Banach space by hypothesis. Indeed, if an inner product were defined on $X$, then we would immediately have that $X$ is reflexive, as every Hilbert space is reflexive. – Marc Nye Oct 4 '13 at 1:18
$\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is not an inner product, but a duality bracket, that is: $\langle \zeta,x \rangle$ is the evaluation of $\zeta \in X^*$ at $x \in X$. Isn't a usual notation? – Seirios Oct 4 '13 at 7:17

Your Answer


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.