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 have a question concerning the proof of the Goldstine theorem, that the image of the unit ball $B_X$ of some Banach space $X$ is dense in the unit ball $B_{X^{**}}$ of its bidual under the canonical embedding of $X$ into $X^{**}$. The proof I am referring to is taken verbatim from the English Wikipedia:

Given an $x^{**} \in B_{X^{**}}$, a tuple $(\phi_1, \dots, \phi_n)$ of linearly independent elements of $X^*$ and a $\delta>0$ we shall find an $x \in (1+\delta) B_{X}$ such that $\phi_i(x)=x^{**}(\phi_i)$ for every $i=1,\dots,n$. If the requirement $||x|| \leq 1+\delta$ is dropped, the existence of such an $x$ follows from the surjectivity of $\Phi : X \to \mathbb{C}^{n}, x \mapsto (\phi_1(x), \dots, \phi_n(x)).$ Let now $Y = \cap_{i} \ker \phi_i = \ker \Phi$. Every element of $x+Y \cap (1+\delta) B_{X}$ has the required property, so that it suffices to show that the latter set is not empty. Assume that it is empty. Then $\mathrm{dist}(x,Y) \geq 1+\delta$ and by the Hahn-Banach theorem there exists a linear form $\phi \in X^*$ such that $\phi|_{Y}=0$, $\phi(x) \geq 1+\delta$ and $||\phi||_{X^*}=1$. Then $\phi \in \mathrm{span}(\phi_1, \dots, \phi_n)$ and therefore $$1+\delta \leq \phi(x) = x^{**}(\phi) \leq ||\phi||_{X^*} ||x^{**}||_{X^{**}} \leq 1,$$

I agree with most of the proof, however, I have a problem with one of last steps, namely why or how it follows that $\phi \in \mathrm{span}(\phi_1, \dots, \phi_n)$. There will be many functionals that fulfill the previous conditions $\phi|_{Y}=0$, $\phi(x) \geq 1+\delta$ and $||\phi||_{X^*}=1$, but are not in $\mathrm{span}(\phi_1, \dots, \phi_n)$. E.g. I think I could construct by Hahn-Banach also a functional $\psi$ that has a kernel $\ker \psi\supsetneq\ker \Phi$ and fulfills $\psi(x) \geq 1+\delta$ and $||\psi||_{X^*}=1$, but cannot be in $\mathrm{span}(\phi_1, \dots, \phi_n)$, since the kernel is a strict superset. Is there something missing in the argument or am I mistaken here?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

$\phi|_Y=0$ iff $\phi \in \mathrm{span}\left( \phi_1 , \ldots \phi_n \right)$:

The "if" part is obvious.

If $\phi|_Y=0$, then $\phi$ defines a linear form on $X/Y$, which is a vector space of dimension $\leq n$ (using your $\Phi$), and $( \phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n)$ is a linearly independent family of elements of $\left( X/Y \right)^*$, so $\dim X/Y = n$ and $( \phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n)$ is a basis of $\left( X/Y \right)^*$.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, thanks a lot. This helped me much to think about these things in terms of quotient spaces and duals thereof, which leads to really elegant arguments. Now, I see also where my argument went totally wrong. –  Elmar Zander May 9 '11 at 12:26
add comment

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.