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

Can we identify the dual space of $l^\infty$ with another "natural space"?. If the answer yes what about $L^\infty$. By the dual space I mean the space of all continuous linear functionals.

share|cite|improve this question
This paper could be helpful, I hope… – user102615 Oct 22 '13 at 21:58
A link to a paper isn't really an answer. – Tyler Oct 22 '13 at 22:24
This is a comment not an answer. – Squirtle Jun 10 '14 at 19:57
up vote 36 down vote accepted

Yes, if $(\Omega, \Sigma, \mu)$ is a (complete) $\sigma$-finite measure space then $(L^{\infty}(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu))^{\ast}$ is the space $\operatorname{ba}(\Omega, \Sigma,\mu)$ of all finitely additive finite signed measures defined on $\Sigma$, which are absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$, equipped with the total variation norm. The proof is relatively easy and can be found e.g. in Dunford-Schwartz, Linear Operators I, Theorem IV.8.16, page 296.

I should add that in that theorem Dunford-Schwartz treat the general case as well, which is a bit messier to state. The duality is the one you would expect, namely "integration". As far as I know, the bidual space of $L^{\infty}$ does not have an explicit analytic description, however (whatever that should mean precisely).

Moreover, the canonical embedding $L^{1}(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu) \to \operatorname{ba}{(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)}$ is of course the map sending $f$ to the signed measure $d\nu = f\,d\mu$. In the $\sigma$-finite case, the image of this map can be recovered by looking at the $\sigma$-additive measures via the Radon-Nikodym theorem (and $\sigma$-additivity corresponds of course precisely to weak$^{\ast}$-continuity of the functionals on $L^{\infty} = (L^1)^{\ast}$).

share|cite|improve this answer
@Didier: Thanks for the fixes! – t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 13:21
Quite a while later but what is "Ba" here? – Zelos Malum Dec 10 '15 at 10:47
'Ba' stands for bounded additive -- look here for more info. – ec92 Mar 18 at 18:19

This is perhaps not such a nice characterization as finitely additive measures on $\mathbb N$, but it might be worth mentioning. (You can look it as follows: We obtain nicer measures - $\sigma$-additive instead of finitely additive - on a more complicated space - $\beta\mathbb N$ instead of $\mathbb N$.)

The space $\ell_\infty$ is isometrically isomorphic to $C(\beta\mathbb N)$, hence the dual is isomorphic to $C^*(\beta\mathbb N)$.

More details about the correspondence between $\ell_\infty$ and the Stone-Cech compactification of integers can be found at wikipedia or in chapter 15 of Carothers' book A short course on Banach space theory.

Now, $C^*(\beta\mathbb N)$ is the space of regular Borel measures on $\beta\mathbb N$ by Riesz representation theorem.

In fact, Carothers goes the other way round. First, the dual of $C^*(\beta\mathbb N)$ is described via finitely additive measures. And then he uses this to prove Riesz representation theorem for compact spaces. (This proof of Riesz' representation theorem is due to Garling.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Of course, I should have mentioned that. In fact, every $L^{\infty}$-space is a space of the form $C(K)$ where $K$ is compact and extremally disconnected (= hyperstonian), thus every dual of $L^\infty$ can be implemented as space of measures on some compact space. I prefer the proof via $C^{\ast}$-theory: look at the space $K$ of states on the commutative unital $C^{\ast}$-algebra $L^{\infty}$ (this is of course somewhat circular, as $K$ is a subset of $(L^{\infty})^{\ast}$). – t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 13:19
@Theo: I might misunderstand what you're saying, but if $L^\infty\cong C(K)$, then $K$ is the maximal ideal space (or character space), not the state space. – Jonas Meyer Jun 24 '11 at 14:51
@Jonas: No, that was a plain mistake on my part (I simply confused characters and states -- I'm no operator theorist). Sorry about that and thanks for the correction. – t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 14:58
@Theo: Thanks for clearing that up. I'm upvoting your comment anyway because it makes some good points. – Jonas Meyer Jun 24 '11 at 15:01

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.