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.

In the middle of another proof (Theorem 3.4, p. 60) in his Functional Analysis book, Rudin says that

"every nonconstant linear functional on $X$ (topological vector space) is an open mapping."

Is this obvious? Could someone please show me how the proof goes?

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

Let $f : X \to \mathbb{R}$ be a nonconstant linear functional and $H= \text{ker}(f) \subsetneq X$. There exists an linear map $\varphi : X/H \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $f = \varphi \circ \pi$ with $\pi : X \to X/H$ the canonical projection. Using the definition of quotient topology, on can show that $f$ is open (resp. continuous) iff $\varphi$ is open (resp. continuous).

Two cases happen: either $f$ is continuous and $X/H$ is Hausdorff, or $f$ is not continuous and $X/H$ is not Hausdorff. However, any real one dimensional topological vector space is linearly homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$ if it is Hausdorff (see for example here), or it has the trivial topology otherwise.

To see this, let $Y$ be a real one dimensional topological vector space, say $Y= \mathbb{R}$, and $U$ be an open neighborhood of $0$. Suppose there exists $x \notin U$. Then, for all $y,z \in Y$ there exists $a \in \mathbb{R} \backslash \{0\}$ such that $y \notin z+aU$. Consequently, $Y$ is $T_1$ and the diagonal of $Y \times Y$ corresponds to $f^{-1}(0)$, with $f : (x,y) \mapsto x-y$, and it is closed for the product topology since $f$ is continuous; therefore, $Y$ is Hausdorff.

Consequently, either $X/H$ is Hausdorff, and $\varphi$ is a linear homeomorphism so $f$ is in fact continuous and open, or $X/H$ is not Hausdorff, and $\varphi$ is open (but not continuous) so $f$ is open (and not continuous).

share|improve this answer

Let $f$ be any non-constant functional on $X$ and $A$ to be any open subset in $X$.

$f$ is an open mapping if and only if for any $x\in A$, there exists an open subset $U$ of $0$ such that $x+U \in A$ and $f(x+U)=(f(x)-\epsilon, f(x)+\epsilon)$, for some $\epsilon>0$.

Since $f$ is a non-constant functional, according to Theorem 1.18 in Rudin's book, $f$ is bounded in some neighborhood of $0$. Take $W$ to be a neighborhood of $0$ such that $x+W \in A$. By Theorem 1.14, we can take a balanced neighborhood $U'$ of $0$ such that $U' \in W\cap V$. Since $f(U')$ is also a balanced neighborhood of $0$ in $\mathbb{R}$, $f(U')$ is a finite interval whose interior contains $0$. Take $\epsilon>0$ such that $(-\epsilon, +\epsilon)$ is contained in $f(U')$. $f^{-1}(-\epsilon,+\epsilon)= U$ is a neighborhood of $0$ in $X$ and $f(U)=(-\epsilon,+\epsilon)$. $U$ is the desired neighborhood.

share|improve this answer
You are assuming $f$ is continuous, which is not part of Rudin's statement. –  Cantor Apr 16 '13 at 17:49
@Cantor as for the proof of Theorem 3.4, the functional \Lambda (following Rudin's symbol)we concern is continuous. –  Salmon Apr 20 '13 at 0:45

I think this is indeed easy to check. Let $f$ be a non zero linear functional from the topological vector space $X$ to $\mathbb{C}$.

  • It is enough to show that $f$ maps a balanced neighborhood of $0$ to an open ball around $0\in \mathbb{C}$ or the whole space $\mathbb{C}$.
  • The former case corresponds to a continuous map $f$, the later to an unbounded map.

Let $V$ be a balanced neighborhood of $0\in X$. There is a point $u\in V$ such that $f(u)\neq0$. Then $$\{f(\theta u):\theta\in\mathbb{C},\, |\theta|\leq1\}=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:|z|\leq|f(u)|\}.$$ It follows from the assumption on $V$ that either

  • $f$ is unbounded and $f(V)=\mathbb{C}$,
  • or $f$ is continuous and either $f(V)=\{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z|<r\}$ or $f(V)=\{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z|\leq r\}$ for some $r>0$.

At this point one can use a big gun such as the open map theorem. I however think that one can still proceed to complete the proof using simple ideas. Here is a sketch.

In the continuous case we now show that $f(V)\neq \{z\in\mathbb{C}:|z|\leq r\}$. If it were the case, then there would be $w\in V$ such that $f(w)=r$. The continuity of the scalar product implies that there is a real number $t>1$ such that $t w\in V$ but then $f(tw)=tf(w)>r$ which is a contradiction.

share|improve this answer

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.