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.

I've been trying to come up with an easy example of an application of the uniform boundedness principle (or Banach-Steinhaus theorem). I was thinking of something like the following, which is unfortunately a non-example:


Non-example:

Consider the Banach space $(B(X), \|\cdot\|_\infty)$, i.e. the space of bounded functions with the sup norm. Let's choose $X=\mathbb R$ and let $\mu$ be a measure that is finite on compact sets, like for example the Lebesgue measure. Define $$ T_t : (B(X), \|\cdot\|_\infty) \to \mathbb R$$ as $$ f \mapsto \int_{[-t,t]} f d \mu$$

Then $T_t$ is linear and bounded: If $\|f\|_\infty = 1$ then $\|T_t f\| = |T_t f| = \int_{[-t,t]} f d \mu \leq 2t$ so that the operator norm $\|T_t\| \leq 2t < \infty$. The condition that fails that prevents me from applying Banach-Steinhaus is that the family $\{T_t\}_{t \in \mathbb R}$ is not pointwise bounded: For $f$ with $\|f\|_\infty$ we have $\sup_{t \in \mathbb R} \|T_t\| \geq \sup_{t \in \mathbb R} 2 t = \infty$.


My non-example was supposed to conclude that the integral operator is continuous on the whole space. Of course it's not on $\mathbb R$ for bounded functions but you see what I'm trying to do. Although one might consider showing that the integral is a continuous operator by applying Banach-Steinhaus "cracking nuts with a sledge hammer", this one is for educational purposes so it's acceptable.

Can someone either modify my example so that it works or show me an equally easy example? Thanks a lot for your help.

share|improve this question
1  
You should remove the absolute value around f in the definition of $T_t$ to get it linear. –  Giuseppe Tortorella Jul 29 '12 at 10:24
    
Oh, of course, otherwise I don't have $T(f+g) = Tf + Tg$ but only $\leq$! Thank you @GiuseppeTortorella –  Matt N. Jul 29 '12 at 10:26
    
And what if you replace $\chi_{[−t,+t]}\mu$ with $\frac{1}{t\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{−x^2/2t^2}\mu$ defining $T_t$? –  Giuseppe Tortorella Jul 29 '12 at 11:20
    
Dear @GiuseppeTortorella, so you mean $$f \mapsto \int_{\mathbb R} f(x) \cdot \frac{1}{t\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{−x^2/2t^2} d x$$? –  Matt N. Jul 29 '12 at 11:34
    
This reminds me of a Fourier or Laplace transform, does this have a name? –  Matt N. Jul 29 '12 at 11:35

2 Answers 2

Here's an easy example of Banach-Steinhaus (BS)(perhaps calling it Uniform Boundedness Principle makes it slightly easier to memorise since it contains more information):

We can use BS to show that $\mathbb R [x]$, the space of polynomials over $\mathbb R$, is not a Banach space with respect to the following norm: $\|p(x)\| = \|\sum_{k=0}^N a_k x^k \| := \max_k |a_k|$.

Define a bounded linear operator $T_n : \mathbb R [x] \to \mathbb R$, $p(x) \mapsto \sum_{k=0}^n a_k$. It's linear (easy to see) and it's bounded since the sum is finite.

Also, for a fixed point $p(x) \in \mathbb R [x]$, $$ \|T_n p \| = \left |\sum_{k=0}^n a_k \right | \leq (\mathrm{deg}p + 1) \|p\|$$ that is, the family $\{T_n\}$ is pointwise bounded. Hence if $\mathbb R [x]$ was a Banach space, all the requirements for BS would be fulfilled so that by BS, $\sup_{n \in \mathbb N} \| T_n \|$ should be finite. But this is false since we can define $p_n (x) = 1 + x + \dots + x^n$ so that $\|T_np_n \| = n + 1 $ and hence $\|T_n\| \geq n + 1$ and hence $\sup_{n \in \mathbb N} \|T_n \| = \infty$. This would contradict BS, hence $\mathbb R [x]$ must be incomplete.


Edit (in response to comment where t.b. kindly pointed out that my $p_n$ is not Cauchy):

This seems like cracking nuts with a sledgehammer since one can just observe that the sequence $p_n(x) = \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{x^k}{2^k} $ has an infinite sum as its limit which is by definition not a polynomial.

share|improve this answer
2  
How does $p_n$ have an infinite sum as its limit with respect to your norm? It's not even Cauchy! –  t.b. Jul 29 '12 at 16:05
    
@t.b. Thanks a lot for spotting the mistake. Ok, got me, I ballsed up there. But then how about $$p_n(x) = \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{1}{2^k} x^k$$ That is Cauchy and its limit is also not in the space. : ) –  Matt N. Jul 29 '12 at 16:13
1  
yeah, that works :) Also your estimate $\lVert T_n p\rVert \leq \lVert p \rVert$ is slightly off: you should multiply the right hand side by $\deg{p}+1$. –  t.b. Jul 29 '12 at 16:15
    
@t.b. Oops, true dat. Thanks for spotting that, too! : ) –  Matt N. Jul 29 '12 at 16:16
2  
Remember this :) –  t.b. Jul 29 '12 at 18:13
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Here's another slightly more important example:

We can use Banach-Steinhaus to show that even though we have convergence in $L^2$ for Fourier series of $f \in C(\mathbb T)$, convergence does not hold pointwise. This we can show by showing that there exists an $f \in C(\mathbb T)$ such that the Fourier series of $f$ diverges at $0$.

For this we need the following three facts (proofs omitted):

Fact 1: If $D_n = \sum_{k=-n}^n e^{2 \pi i k}$ is the $n$-th Dirichlet kernel then $$ D_n \ast f(x) = \sum_{k=-n}^n \hat{f}_k e^{ik 2 \pi x}$$ that is, the convolution with the Dirichlet kernel gives us the $n$-th partial sum of the Fourier series of $f$.

Fact 2: $$ \int_0^1 \left | D_n(x) \right | dx \xrightarrow{n \to \infty} \infty$$

Fact 3: The map $T_n: f \mapsto D_n \ast f (0)$ is a bounded linear operator with norm $\|T_n\| = \int_0^1 \left | D_n(x) \right | dx$.

Now all the prerequisites for Banach-Steinhaus are fulfilled:

(i) $(C(\mathbb T), \|\cdot\|_{L^2})$ is a Banach space, $\mathbb R$ is a normed space

(ii) $\{T_n\}$ is a family of bounded linear operators: for each $n$, $T_n$ is bounded by $\|T_n\|$ (Fact 3)

Now if $\{T_n\}$ was pointwise bounded, i.e., for a given $f$, $\sup_{n \in \mathbb N} \|T_n f \| < \infty $ then we could apply Banach-Steinhaus to get $\sup_{n \in \mathbb N} \| T_n \| < \infty$ but that would be a contradiction to $\| T_n \| = \int_0^1 |D_n(x) | dx$ and $ \int_0^1 \left | D_n(x) \right | dx \xrightarrow{n \to \infty} \infty$. Hence $\{T_n\}$ cannot be pointwise bounded that is, there exist an $f$ such that $T_nf$ diverges for $n \to \infty$.

share|improve this answer

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.