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.

As the title indicates I'm trying to show that $\ell_{\infty}^{*}$ is not $\ell_1$. I've shown that for p, q conjugate and finite we do indeed have $\ell_{p}^{*} = \ell_q$, with the correspondence between $y_i = \phi(e_i)\in \ell_{q}$ and $\phi$ where $e_i$ is the standard (0,....,0,1,0,....) with a 1 in the 'i'th place and $\phi \in \ell_{p}^{*}$.

However, I gather the reason this falls apart in the infinite case is that the dual $\ell_{\infty}^{*}$ is far larger than (but contains) $\ell_1$, being in fact the set of bounded sequences eventually tending to 0. However, I'm having some trouble seeing this. In theory, I'm working over $\mathbb{C}$, but I don't think that's where my issue is arising. It's certainly obvious that $\ell_1$ is contained in $\ell_{\infty}^{*}$: $\sum_i |y_i| < \infty \Rightarrow |\phi(x)| = |\sum_i y_i x_i| \leq (\sum_i |y_i|)(\|x\|_{\infty})$ so $\|\phi\| \le \sum_i |y_i| < \infty$: but then this is my problem, how do we get anything which corresponds to a sequence of $y_i$ -not- in $\ell_1$? I don't think working in the reals is an issue but perhaps I'm overlooking something, so suppose (e.g.) $y_i = \frac{1}{i}$: unless I've misunderstood, this should correspond to a functional since the $y_i$ are bounded and tend to 0, i.e. $\phi(e_i) = \frac{1}{i}$ and extend linearly. But if this is the case, then surely x=(1,1,1,...) gives us an x with norm 1 ($\|x\|_{\infty} = 1$) and for which $\phi$ is unbounded? So in that case this sequence of $y_i$ is a bounded sequence tending to 0 which does not in this way correspond to a bounded linear operator: or is the correspondence no longer in the obvious way? Surely no matter how you look at it each functional gives rise to a sequence of $y_i$, and unless i've confused myself these $y_i$ must be in the space $\ell_1$, which is wrong. So where have I gone wrong?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

You assume that any element of the dual must come from a sequence of $y_i$. Equivalently, you assume that the space spanned by the indicator functions $e_i$ is dense in $\ell_{\infty}$. This is false: the closure of the span of the indicator functions $e_i$ is the subspace $c_0$ of $\ell_{\infty}$ of sequences which tend to $0$, and then the existence of an element of $\ell_{\infty}^{\ast}$ not in $\ell_1$ follows by the Hahn-Banach theorem. (But there is an easier way to see that the dual of $\ell_{\infty}^{\ast}$ is not $\ell_1$ which does not produce an explicit element not in $\ell_1$, which I think was the point of your exercise.)

It is known that examples cannot be explicitly written down in the sense that their existence is independent of ZF.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, if $x$ is in $\ell_\infty\setminus c_0$, the functional on $c_0+\mathbb C x$ defined by $y+\lambda x\mapsto \lambda$ is bounded (with norm $\frac{1}{d(x,c_0)}$) and so extends by Hahn-Banach to a nonzero element of $\ell_\infty^*$ that vanishes on $c_0$. And yes, the independence from ZF came up in the following MathOverflow question: mathoverflow.net/questions/5351/…. Edit: I only commented because of the "I think" parts, but I see those were gone before I posted. –  Jonas Meyer Apr 27 '11 at 0:50
    
Ah I see, thank you for the clarification, that makes sense. What was the easier way of seeing the dual is not $\ell_1$, looking at separability of dual spaces? Interesting that you can not write down an explicit example, that could have saved me 10 minutes of head-scratching, hah. –  Warner B. Apr 27 '11 at 1:00
1  
@Warner: yes, separability is the argument I was thinking of. The argument actually proves that the dual of $\ell_{\infty}$ cannot even be isomorphic to $\ell_1$, whereas the argument I describe above only shows that the obvious inclusion of $\ell_1$ into the dual is not surjective, which is a weaker statement. –  Qiaochu Yuan Apr 27 '11 at 1:01
    
Brilliant, many thanks to both of you. –  Warner B. Apr 27 '11 at 1:19

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.